Travis County Commssioners Court
May 6, 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 20
20-a is to discuss legislative issues, including proposed bills, and take appropriate action. 20-b is to consider other bills, if any, in response to action taken by the legislature and take appropriate action. And while the appropriate people are coming to the table, my I make reference to a house concurrence on number 223, which I guess is a follow-up to 1017 that we have been discussing regarding immunity. And what this does basically is a concurrent resolution basically authorizing the firm to sue Travis County, notwithstanding the Texas supreme court ruling in our favor. I move that we authorize the county judge as a follow-up to authorization and actions already taken to put together a response to the resolution where we deal with the facts and basically put forward the county's position. And also that we authorize -- you authorize me and as far as you want to go, we can basically extend today's meeting or recess it until tomorrow because this is set for hearing before the house civil practices committee at 2:00 in the afternoon. But my motion is that we prepare a response basically in opposition to the 1017 and authorize the county judge to go over and represent the county on this matter, along with legislative consultants. And it's at 2:00 o'clock and other members of the court will want to go, I suggest we recess today's meeting if we think that --
>> (indiscernible) may want to go.
>> seconded by Commissioner Davis. The big problem with this hearing is we don't know whether it will take place at 2:00 o'clock tomorrow.
>> or two a.m.
>> yeah, maybe two a.m. It will not be two p.m. It will be on adjournment of the house, judge, which has varied from four or 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon to midnight or 10:30.
>> then I move that whatever response we put together we provide a copy to each member of this committee, along with the appropriate urging to disallow this. That good?
>> very quick question. Do we know who is on this committee? Are there any local reps?
>> I'm looking it up as we speak. Gat advertise, bob Davis, will heartman, king, krusee, rhodes and lloyd.
>> did you say rhodes?
>> yes.
>> in addition on to what we just said, is it basically that each member of the court who knows a member of the committee, maybe they could share their response as well as a phone call to urge -- it seems to me that Williamson county representatives and hays would be sympathetic. I know representative Davis from dallas. I don't know her position on this, but I would be happy to contact her.
>> she's very friendly, judge.
>> and I think out of 254 counties to one more narrowly taylored with us at the end --
>> could I ask a technical question. I know we had this discussion related to local bills versus ones that have statewide impact. You know, joint resolutions, are these allowed to be local bills as opposed to -- I mean, we passed certain deadlines and I'm just wondering whether these joint resolutions can be introduced long after other things have happened because this is in essence a lot of bill.
>> I think this is a concurrent resolution and it would be subject to the rules that describe what a local bill is. I do not believe, but I am not certain that this would qualify as a local bill. Under the very specific definition of a language in the rule, I believe that a suit such as this would not qualify. So I don't think it's subject to those posting requirements, but we can certainly look into that and very quickly give you an answer.
>> appreciate it. Thank you.
>> they can do this whenever they want to as long as the session is in progress.
>> with respect to general deadlines that are coming in, this bill, as you know, judge, was filed about a week ago. And it is very late in the process to be filing something. It will have a very tough road in order to get all the way through the process starting this late, but it is possible. Bills can be reported out of committee as late as, I believe, may the 14th, and still technically have a chance of making it all the way through the process.
>> so may 14th is kind of a benchmark?
>> that's a serious deadline that it is possible for them to suspend that rule, but it is not likely.
>> got it.
>> certainly not for something like this.
>> okay.
>> the other bad thing is that there is reference made to a limit of three million dollars in the next to the last resolve. A suit authorized by this resolution, including any court costs and any prejudgment interest awarded under law may not exceed three million dollars, plus the amount of any attorneys' fees. A 5,500-dollar dispute is kind of growing.
>> well, what was also interesting, judge is under number 16 it does make reference to the dissenting opinion of one judge on the supreme court, but it does not make mention of every other member of the supreme court that had a differing view that backed up where Travis County landed on this issue. In addition to the things that are just actually in the hearing.
>> right. Another part of that ever growing mission is that we share whatever response we put together with the Travis County legislative delegation and urge them to show renewed vigor in protecting the Travis County public treasury against efforts such as this. It's getting to be more and more serious, it seems to me.
>> it's growing.
>> any more discussion? I heard about it last night and my first thought was -- I don't know that the facts really are truthfully set out here. We need that address that. And the other thing is the arguments that we think we have on our side. I guess there's no obligation to anybody's part to pick up the phone and call Travis County and say, by wait, we're putting together a house concurrent resolution over here that says so and so. Is this true, is that true? Did this happen? Did you have anything to account for this?
>> I was really puzzled and surprised to find out this this bill was only three weeks away. And it seems like there were months attached to that as opposed to just a couple of weeks late.
>> we're building another facility, too. It wasn't like --
>> months. Babies have been born in less time than it took this thing to be built. [ laughter ] [overlapping speakers]
>> you had your first grandchild and I had my first grandchild.
>> [ laughter ]
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> let's hear it for the babies! [ laughter ]
>> all right. Item b.
>> judge, related to that topic is senate bill 1017, which is wentworth's and the victims' bill stipulating when a county can be sued. And the final draft of that is out. And if I could just take a moment and read the new language to you all because we just got this. Under subsection b it says the total amount of money recoverable from a county on a claim for breach of a county may not exceed an amount equal to the sum of, number one, the balance due and owed by the county under the contract as it may have been amended, including any amount owed as compensation for owner-caused delays or acceleration. Two, the reasonable value of change orders or additional work performed, and three, reasonable attorney's fees. In subsection c, except as allowed under subsection b and awarded damages under this section may not include cons quen shall damages or exemplary damages. And finally subsection d, this does not waive defense on damages available to a party to a contract other than a bar against suit based on sovereign immunity. That's the final language that they voted out of committee. That is the senate bill coming out of the house committee. So it will go to --
>> when was that voted out?
>> I want to say yesterday. I believe yesterday.
>> what's that phrase agai what's the phrase regarding owner-caused delays?
>> including any amount owed as compensation for owner-caused delays or acceleration.
>> that's very broad.
>> that kind of --
>> I don't know if the inconsequential damages later on helps any because these are the inconsequential damages.
>> it almost looks conflicting; however, there are owner type delays that you can put an actual damage on that would not be a con sequential damage. That language is helpful to some extent as well as the other language that bob didn't read that the contracts that can be sued under are only those for the sale of goods or for engineering or construction services. If there are any other surveyors, appraisers, lawyers, anybody who wants to sue the county, they could not based upon the way this language is written now.
>> so it's getting better in some extent, but it's still very difficult bill for a county to swallow.
>> of course, of all the things you just mentioned that the county also does still have the ability to claim rorses and omissions that are not available to us under construction contracts. That's why you have liquidated damage clause within the contract.
>> true.
>> judge, Commissioners, bob and I are discussing recommending a strategy to you of seeking an amendment on the house floor that would take those words out, and what we think might be appropriate is for us to approach perhaps representative baxter or representative stick and see if they would be willing to consider undertaking that effort.
>> well, my position is that we ought to oppose it and then you think it's going through and then you try to amend it. Have we given up on just categorically voting?
>> I don't think we've given up on it, judge, but it appears to me that with representative nixon's support in the house that it is likely that he could garner the votes to pass this in its current form.
>> so we think it does the same thing as 226?
>> it has already passed the senate. This is the substitute for the senate bill in house committee.
>> judge, do we know if the conversation might take place between the representatives from houston that we visited with last week who said that they might be -- harris county, that they might have conversations with another representative. That might be a conversation worth having to see if that may also be part of the draft that you hear of how we handle this. They certainly made that offer to talk to us.
>> well, if you want to give us general direction to either try to defeat the bill or amend it, amend this language out, then we can try to figure out what would be the most effective way to do that.
>> that would be my motion.
>> second.
>> the house concurrent resolution is just us.
>> right.
>> but on this I do think it would be a hardship on a lot of the smaller counties, but my motion would be that we put together a strategy to try to defeat it, and if that cannot be done, then we try to get the local delegation members to amend it. It would be significantly better I think if we could just take out the part about owner-caused delays, etcetera. It would give counties the right to countersue, just general law?
>> sure. We don't need authority. The language to sue would be -- we would have the same authority.
>> the state of Texas is subject to the same owner-caused delays, etcetera?
>> i've never seen those words, judge. This language is all new.
>> you just have to look at that administrative process.
>> do you have what language there is regarding suits against the state?
>> the state has language that has those first two items that you could not have an award of damages based on con sequential damages, exemplary damages, but they also would not be able to recover attorney's fees or home office overhead against the state. So those two provisions were taken out of this substitute?
>> why don't we argue that? That's even better [ inaudible ].
>> that's the motion, defeat or try to get motion to what the state has. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Now, the -- at the city lurchl on they seemed to be as upset and opposed about this as Travis County, but are we the one trying to make waves -- only one trying to make waves on it?
>> I think since your appearance at the lunch that the activity has picked up over there on this issue. I've run into more folks that have -- at least they're talking about it and trying to do something, but I think up to this point it's been mostly Travis County that's been there, both in the senate and house hearing testifying against the bill, and trying to fix it as best we could. So -- but there's been more activity lately.
>> do you know what kind of activity?
>> I think csc is actively working on it.
>> judge, i've been to -- I read an article from the Round Rock leader, the Williamson county Commissioners court backed up our position as well at their meeting, so they are on record now also as opposing.
>> the reality of it all is that chairman nixon is chairman of the committee. And to get changes in that bill we will have to get his agreement because even if an amendment is offered on the house floor, he will likely move to table that and he will have the votes to table the amendment. So it's -- there's going to have to be some type of agreement, a compromise reached between now and the time it comes to the house floor. I think that's just the reality of it.
>> is representative nixon the one that's pushing the tort reform bill?
>> it's his bill.
>> that would be a bill that on point in terms of the tort reform bill is entirely intended to resolve some of the things we're talking about and at the same time I think there's something that would absolutely open up another door in a very big way. They don't seem to be consistent.
>> I think if I could, Commissioners, say I think that judge Biscoe may be the only county official that expressed concerns to representative nixon, and it frankly would be extremely helpful if we could persuade some of the other county officials to express their point of view.
>> particularly harris county.
>> the motion is to try to defeat it and let's get the state language. Next bill?
>> we're going to ask some others to come up, judge.
>> I'm with the Travis County auditor's office. We spoke, I guess, briefly last week about a bill that would remove cscd from the county's health insurance programs and on the state program. And at that time there had not been a lot of financial anal analysis of what the impact could be so y'all could get more specific in your thought processes. And we have done a little bit of that. In our working group meeting on Friday, I agreed to try to come up with some language that perhaps could nail down some of the issues. There's still some concern that while the lawyers felt pretty comfortably in dealing with the statute, that it was going to definitely move the employees over to the state and then it would definitely cover some of the related benefits that we had like long-term, short-term disability and other things that were not specifically named in the senate bill. I still felt in my reading of it that there was perhaps some room for argument, and we felt that maybe, if nothing else, that this is an opportunity to clarify some things, and so I drafted some language. But in looking at this more closely, I think that you have received a memo from executive manager lisa perez that talks about an actuarial number that they came up with. And when I talked with susan about that this morning, it appeared that the actuarial numbers were taken with the assumption that all of the retirees would also automatically go over to the state's program. When you read the language of this bill very closely, it appears as if the retirees get to opt in to the state's program, and what that does actuarially, and I'm not the numbers person, so I could be corrected on this, but it takes all of your positive experience and allows it to move over and leaves us with what is probably more high utilization out of that group without having them put into that pool, so to speak, over the time period. There are a number of statutes where the county is authorized to provide retirees coverage. And there is language in the section for cscd that says that we must provide cscd employees with similar levels of benefits as are provided to our own employees, notwithstanding whatever gets carved out under this new insurance program. I just don't know what all that means, so I gave a copy to john to take a look at that would hopefully nail some of these issues down a little bit. But I'm not comfortable with saying that it's going to do it without -- particularly without your lawyers looking at it really closely from this perspective. I did go ahead and draft up a memo that kind of expressed some of my concerns after reading some of the language, and again there's just a whole myriad of statutes out there in this area that kind of enter 29, so -- intertwine. So as long as the lawyers are comfortable that it's very clear and they're happy with it, they're the ones that end up having to go and defend it, and so it may be that y'all don't want to try to take an opportunity to make any amendments to this. I don't know. I'm leaving that up to y'all, but we just wanted to bring forward some of our perspectives on what we think this might do from the payroll application and payroll perspective.
>> let me ask a question. Number one is the option that's granted for the Travis County employees to retire employees appeared an opportunity to stay put and have an opportunity to join the state program as far as providing health insurance is one issue. And, of course, the more we depend on health benefits and what the needs are as we get older. On the other hand, we're looking at the cscd employees who also can be counted as extending the benefits to health benefits in particular, paying into the premium base of what all the other employees are doing. Being -- with this particular language of being asked to mandate it to get into no choice. The county would be holding on to persons that we have depended upon over the years to be a part of our health program. I guess I'm understanding that as far as what you're saying. And if I'm incorrect, I'm always looking for a correction. My on whole point -- my point, though, is as far as the numbers are concerned, I know the cscd employees have a certain number that are participating in the program; however, the retirees that we're looking at where they have an opportunity to opt out or stay in, what is that number of Travis County employees that stay or if they would like to go to the state? [one moment, please, for change in captioners] .
>> I'm going to ask barbara to address that particular issue because I think that overlace what the numbers are.
>> and I guess what I'm looking for is the combined number for both situations as far as the monetary -- what would be the monetary [indiscernible] I'm sorry.
>> in an overriding sense. Not even dealing with the little particulars. Every time we have a group of employees that are treated differently, whatever that is, it's a cost to the county.
>> okay.
>> if our insurance program goes to everyone, we handle it the same way, that's one thing. If we've got separate groups we need to treat differently, that's an administrative cost that Travis County has to bear. And we don't -- we will not have the staff to do that, so there is -- and it will probably impact h.r. And I don't want to ignore your question, but there are many questions. Where is the open enrollment? Do we take care of that? Does our h.r. Department have to have a separate one? Do we handle it? Do they pick each year what they want to do? Or once they make that election, are they all out? All of those become a assistive issue as well, and right now I think the numbers that alicia has would indicate that if they took their actives and left retirees here, this would be a real problem for us. But some other year it may not be. So rather than just focus on that, not that that's not important, but the real concept of is that a state agency or is it a county agency, there are many rules that the state has for many things that are different than the counties, and we kind of butt up against that with c.s.d. All the time. [inaudible] pick one. If you want to go with the state's travel policy, fine. You have to go with it. You can't pick, you know, the mileage that's better and the meals that are worse and that type of thing. So what we're seeing is more and more legislation in a general sort of sense. This is just one of them where we've got lots of rules for a lot of people. And they are very -- those are expensive laws for Travis County to administer with no benefits.
>> barbara, do [indiscernible].
>> the authority that the county has to provide any kind of employee benefits to c.s.c.d. Employees is in the government code, section 76-006. What that section says before this bill was written is that department shall contract for all employee benefits with the county served by the department and designated by that purpose by the county -- sorry, by the district judges and the employees are governed by the personnel policies of that county. That section is being amended to say that it does not apply to employee benefits for group insurance and related coverages provided to employees of a department through group benefits program for state employees under -- it says chapter 15-51 of the insurance code, but that's also the equivalent of the employment retirement system. And so basically that provision is now being changed so that we don't have -- if this bill passes, we won't have any authority to provide group insurance coverage to these employees. We can't provide health, we can't provide dental, we can't provide [inaudible], we can't provide short-term disability, long-term disability, all of those will be provided through e.r.s. When I was looking at the bill, I spoke to the general counsel at e.r.s. About it, and their understanding of it is that they will be responsible for doing open enrollment for us. I assume that they will also have to do the claims administration and assisting people with difficult claims because we can't assist people with claims with their program. I mean, they are going to be the ones that have to help people get the coverages that they ought to be getting under their program. And so it's not a question of people being able to choose from year to year or the department being able to choose from year to year. Once this bill is passed, they are not ours anymore, they belong to e.r.s. In terms of those coverages. Now, that doesn't address half of the issues that we're being presented in terms of sit more of a hassle and more expensive for us to have to do payroll deductions differently for a subset of employees for cscd. And, you know, I have no idea what's involved in that, and so I won't even try to talk about those facts because they clearly know that on a day-to-day basis. But from the perspective of people flipping backwards and forwards -- now, this authority really didn't give us authority to provide coverage for their retirees, per se, but I think once you take the employees out, you are also taking the retirees out, because if you go to 15-51, it says that a retiree is automatically covered by the basic coverage for anew tants unless they specifically waive the coverage. And waiving the coverage is like our waiving the coverage. Just because you waive our coverage doesn't mean you get coverage someplace else. But if your spouse has coverage, you waive it and you will have the coverage through their plan.
>> so they treat it the same, in other words, retirees and --
>> yes, and --
>> and also [indiscernible], they are both treated the same as far as if the bill amends that particular section of the code as far as dealing with the cscd employees.
>> it is not as clear in that, but I think that they are intended to be covered in any court that was asked to address the issue would say yes, the retirees follow the employees on this one.
>> okay.
>> the thing that was concerting to us when we read this bill is, as she mentioned one, it does say they are employees, they are active employees, they are automatically eligible, but then it says they can waiver out, and obviously, lawyer to lawyer they may be comfortable with it, but as individuals have read it, they have -- we don't know what that wafering means. The other thing was the language that says a retired employee is eligible to participate in the group benefit sfits program on application of the board of trustees. On application, employee is automatically covered. Now, there's -- and I haven't read 15-51 so that's why I said generally we tend to defer, you know, if they are very comfortable with all of this language and we don't need the opportunity to make any clarifications at this point, that's kind of a call for you all to make. But that was a concern. In the t-flex, there is clield care benefits. Those traditionally aren't medical benefits, so, again, I don't know 15-51, is there cafeteria plan, I haven't read it, I don't know if it covers child care benefits or --
>> it does. I asked that question from the people who administer the e.r.a. Programs and they said yes.
>> can I ask a more basic question? What's the point of changing this law? And this is the only thing I can figure out is I'm getting the sense that the state is trying to equally treat all of its employees no matter what county you happen to live in as opposed to it may be possible for a cscd employee in, say, Travis County to have a better set of medical plans, et cetera, versus somebody from cscd in starr county. Is that the point or is there another point that I'm just not getting?
>> if I may, Commissioners, the point of this legislation is to provide relief to cscd statewide who are experiencing incredible increases in insurance cost and cannot continue to pay for insurance for their employees. As you know, counties don't pick up the cost of cscd insurance, nor does the state directly. It comes directly out of the department's budget. So this legislation was initially introduced in the last session. It failed. It is supported by a majority of departments statewide. Our department is taking a neutral stance to this because it's difficult at this point to understand what all the ramifications are. We don't know what the state health benefit plan looks like. We don't know what the county plan ultimately will look like next year. So it's hard to say if this will be better for cscd employees at this point or not. But this is basically the first step in reaching the goal of having the state fund insurance costs for cscd employees. And that's why this legislation was put forward.
>> on a strictly administrative perspective, charles vaughn, Travis County [indiscernible] payroll, money has to come from somewhere to pay for these benefits. It can come from a grant, it's got to come from the individual, if you are covering your spouse or child, it's being deducted out of your paycheck. It's got to get to pay for that coverage some way. If this continues to get deducted out of their paycheck, that means we will be running in effect two separate benefit plans within the payroll system t state cafeteria plan and the county cafeteria plan. I'll have to keep all those separate because the money will have to go to different places for different things. If somehow the arrangement is made where the money goes straight from cscd somehow over there, then they lose the tax deductible benefit of having these taken out pre-tax t employees would in effect write a check to whoever it would be to cover their spouse or dependents. This would be really, really complicated for us. I'm not saying it couldn't be done. I could set up a subsequent ledger system for a separate cafeteria plan, but that means not only my having to collect information from the county side for benefits, that means I'm also having to roll over a completely separate benefit plan from the state. I know it says there's a year conversion in there. I'm not even sure how that would be done because that would mean somebody -- if she were to change her dependents from a spouse to spouse plus child, that means somehow e.r.s. Would have to contact us, make those adjustments and send that over to e.r.s. This would be incredibly complicated to do with the staff I v. You are basically looking at probably have a stayed coordinator within the payroll section for the cafeteria plan associated with these employees. Now if they decline medical or get the state medical, I don't have anything to do with it. That means, you know, like if the -- some of the district judges have state health insurance. That's their deal. They get a state paycheck. It's not a problem. Cscd employees don't get a state paycheck. That means anything that goes on their w-2 like their child care expenses, if they go through the state somehow that is correct means the state has to -- for me to put out the w-2, which means I put out the w-2 which I have no oversight, no control, no verification. If we do it, that means I'm having to completely separate how those systems work within the payroll section. And that's a tough one. I mean, I'm being -- that's a tough one. I'm not even sure how we would do that right now.
>> the language that I suggested that I gave a copy of to john hilly basically clarified that a retiree does not have to apply to be eligible. It makes it more consistent with the 15-51, kind of removes that language. And I also had suggested some language be in that tried to make it quite clear that we weren't responsible four any benefits administration of their benefits. To try to remove that. Now, obviously at some point if we're still doing the w-2s, we would need to get information from the state as to their participation so we could put that on the w-2, but hopefully we could clarify some language that would make it more specific that we are not going to at the local level be the ones that are responsible for straight that plan for them.
>> the problem is they don't get a state paycheck. Cscd doesn't get a state paycheck. Basically what they are saying they expect the counties at the local jurisdiction to administer the state benefits plan. That's really the only way this is going to work where all the money flows through and correctly record to do i.r.s., You know, if it's adjustment before taxes or state child care, that's the only way it's going to work. So then we are then administering part of the state benefit plan.
>> and maybe, I don't know if this bill is a done deal, but in terms of amending it, maybe the thing oug to be if they opt that the state runs their payroll and they are paid through the state rather than the county manages it, or that whatever cost we incur -- because I agree with charles. If he has to put another person on your -- you are paying for another person is that the state has to pay for any cost of implementing this. That's another -- you know, that's another thing.
>> if the state picks up the paycheck, then you've got a whole section of employees who -- who are going to get moved to employees retirement system for the state. I'm not saying this is a bad or good bill. It's just -- it's a mess. It's a mess.
>> and to also let you know, this has already passed the house. It has not passed the senate yet.
>> I would note we still retain our retirees who have already retired because the language in the bill is for prospective retirees.
>> I think that is a problem because what happens if the state takes the low risk and we're dealing with the people who are higher risk and more expensive? This is an expensive -- I understand why the bill is there, but for Travis County, this is a very expensive bill. And this precedent continues to roll on with quasi state agencies. Almost seems the state is schizophrenic is it their organization or is it ours. And maybe that's the real issue at hand, but it's very difficult to administer disspairt programs. Can we do it, yes, but it's expensive.
>> so what do we need to do today?
>> all we are doing is tossing out to you that there are some issues. We are tossing out to you some suggested language that I think probably doesn't contemplate all the possibilities, but perhaps could be a starting point if you wanted to direct your lawyers to take a look at this and/or move forward to recommendation to legislature counsel to go ahead and try and make some corrections. Again, it may be that all of these issues -- obviously the administrative issues are there to some extent, but some of the other issues, you know, the lawyers may have a real comfort level with and don't feel like there needs to be anything else that nails that down. We hesitate to tell you how to proceed on this because there are just a whole lot of issues here, and you are setting your priorities for the time of your leg council. We are here to assist, provide suggestions should you want them, and answer any questions.
>> [indiscernible]? Anything?
>> I don't know. You would have to, I guess, have your legislative representative talk to them. Harris county does not have a probation director, they have an acting director at this point, but senator when it meyer is very tied in with that department and is he sponsor of the bill in the senate. So I can't really address what other counties are saying about this. I think there are administrative implementation issues. That all counties will face.
>> and they are not talking to payroll.
>> I mean I think as a minimum if it's a done deal that this is going through, and I have no way to know that is correct and if we think it's clear, it seems one of the things that has to be add add as an amendment is and the state of Texas will pay for administrative costs for cscd and we should bill them at once or estimate it at the beginning of each year and charge it to each employee using the state plan or whatever, but, you know, to me, particularly in the economic situations we are in, to add another person for no benefit to this organization is really unfortunate. Certainly not what I would like to do.
>> is there an association that overrides and is out there the same way that we have the tac and auditor's association?
>> yes, Texas probation association is lobbying in favor of this legislation.
>> it seems le that would be the vehicle to find that magical question as opposed to making our legitimate I have consultant make phone calls. It seems -- to find out how this impacts the other counties. I would find it hard to believe that your association will be pushing a bill and not thinking that it's something favorable for the majority of the members within your own organization.
>> well, Commissioner, they do. The majority of the probation departments are in support of this legislation because they feel long term it will provide relief for them in terms of insurance costs. I don't think there's been a whole lot of focus on the impact it will have to counties in terms of administration.
>> but where I'm going, you are not hearing my point. Same way that through [indiscernible] the large urban counties talk to one another about this thing, it seems like I find it hard to believe that your association would have a bill going through where the large counties that would be impacted by that would not be aware of what's going on, asking the same questions that we are, and sharing that informationment and it would seem to me that if this bill is that important to your association, that you all would initiate those conversations and find that out as opposed to laying it on us that we need to find it out because we're bothering to ask the questions that your own association is not asking on you all's membership. I don't know, maybe it's -- i've had too much coffee today.
>> no, I understand what you are saying, I just think the priority for the Texas probation association is trying to start down the path to get e.r.s. To pay health insurance benefits for cscd employees, and their goal really isn't looking at what the impact will be to the county.
>> maybe the underwriter is if they choose this payroll [indiscernible] if they want to be a state agency with the state administering everything, there is a solution. That is let the payroll and everything run through the state and let the state handle that as opposed to us, if they make that choice. I understand why they want to choose the best benefits for them. But this is not -- this is not in trbt's best interest. It's -- Travis County's best interest. It's expensive and there's no benefit to us having this. As a matter of fact, we will be hurt by the cost of administration. So I guess one thing is if this is a done deal and it's going to go through, if we could get it amended that the state has to pay the cost of administering it or if they choose this, the whole payroll function has to be managed by the state and not us. That takes care of our problem.
>> that's sounds like something the auditor's association could pick up.
>> let me bring up one other point of information. Not all cscd statewide go through the auditor's office. Some have their own independent fiscal auditors. This would not have the same impact to every cscd and that might be another reason why tac has not taken an active role on this. Or they don't understand the cost. You know. Until they start administering it. We try to look at those costs up front so that's not a big surprise come budget time. I mean, that's another possibility.
>> well, I move that we indicate our position to the sponsor of the bill, senator whit meyer, and --
>> it's already passed the house.
>> [indiscernible] could be an administrative -- in our view, it could be an administrative nightmare and we believe the state ought to pick up expenses or administer the payroll.
>> I second that.
>> from the tras county perspective, we understand it impacts counties different ways, but for those [indiscernible] the administrative impact could be substantial. I just think at least we oht to indicate that to them so they will know. That was seconded by Commissioner Davis. Any more discussion in all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. We could do a short letter saying that, one or two sentences. Any other important legislation?
>> the other bill I have is house bill 2642 by bail yer. It is in calendars committee. It has not yet passed the house. It says that [indiscernible] for any employee association business. For those of you who were around during the catastrophic sick lea when we had set up this pool, the main issue with that is the same issue we had with this. Where is the money going to come from. The bill specifically states that the pool is maintained on an hour by hour basis regardless of funding source, but people get paid in money, they don't get paid in hours. We still have to determine how these people are going to get paid and how the money would be set up and how that money would be accounted for within these pools. Each association could have its own pool as long as they had law enforcement officers as members, which means we could have up to four separate leave benefit pools that would have to be maintained.
>> the [indiscernible] already has this on their slate as being opposed. But they are already on record opposing that pool thing.
>> for the same reasons -- indicate the administrative problems that we foresee.
>> yeah, the more rules we have for different subsets of employees, the more expensive it is to administer.
>> and we would probably have to have at least a couple of county attorneys' opinions just figuring out how to pay these people out of here.
>> but I do think it's important for them to see that here it could be four separate pools. Is that what we're saying?
>> uh-huh.
>> so my motion basically is to indicate concurrence with the c.u.c. Position, indicate the specific reasons that we see as a problem, put those in a letter, send them to the bill's sponsors. Any more discussion?
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Davis. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> hi, Commissioners. I want to bring a couple bills to your attention. We have some good news in the mass gathering permit department. I wanted to make you aware that house bill 2205 by hildebrand is moving and we are asking our team to work on two issues to either lower the amount of hours from five to three or do away with time limit altogether. Change the definition of what is needed for a permit. That has been done in this bill so I don't know if you would like to take a position now, but basically what they did was they came in and said they lowered it to 500 persons who will remain at the location for more than five continuous hours, or for any duration of time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. And 4:00 a.m. And where a majority of the persons may reasonably be expected to be under 21 years of age and where alcoholic beverages will be sold, served or consumed at or around the gathering. Basically that does away with the time limit and the number altogether. So I believe this is a favorable bill now. It has provisions in there that fixes -- there's a court case that actually brought this whole issue up about the judge having to turn it around in ten days. It fixes that issue. It also changes the permit process so that the owners of obtaining a letter from the sheriff, the health department and the fire marshal is on the applicant rather than once they apply you have to go get all this information from those individuals. The applicant now has to go get that information from them, they have to sign letters of approval, they bring that to you and apply for the permit, and you have ten days to deny it or accept it. And there's no hearing. One thing it does do is takes away the hearing unless you deny the permit and the applicant asks for a hearing. So it streamines the process somewhat for the applicants, but it provides the safeguards that we were seeking, and I believe -- I sent this around, all this information to our fire marshal, pete baldwin, h.h.s., And i've not heard back any comment so I don't know if you want to take a position without their input, but that's where we are. .
>> move we indicate our support.
>> second.
>> any more discussion in all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> the second bill last week, chris shields held up the new house bill 3588 by chairman krusee, which is the transportation bill. Elaine sent to you by separate cover announcement of that bill. County staff, t.n.r. Staff does not have any recommendations, but we're here to answer questions if you have any questions. It's my understanding that the language that we had sent over originally on the r.m.a.s asking them for some changes, all of that is in this bill. So if you have any questions, we would be happy to answer them.
>> I guess I really just got the summary because it isn't a large bill and it does provide a lot of the r.m.a. Bills that were before, I wanted to make sure, number one, that the amended changes that we suggested in the other bill sponsored by krusee was actually there and made sure that those changes were -- are, rather, accomplished in this particular bill her ani think they are. And I know there's a lot of summary that staf has gone through and presented a summary; however, I guess -- I just received that and I haven't had a chance to go through all of that language. It's quite a bit. In fact, that's a very -- this bill is like a book almost. It's pretty thick. I just wanted to make sure where are we are on that? Let me ask that on house bill 3588.
>> where is the bill?
>> yes.
>> the substitute that we're talking, the big substitute was introduced last Tuesday when chris brought it in and it was passed out of committee at 1:00 a.m. That night basically. So it's moving. Senator ogden has introduce add companion bill. I don't know if it's had a hearing or not. But this bill is -- maybe the on lobby team would like the talk on it.
>> I would like to hear something because I want to make sure those things that we discussed here are still embedded. House bill 2522.
>> yes, sir, the language from the airport that you had requested remained. The current law is still in this bill.
>> let me hear from the lobbyist, I guess.
>> I would just comment, Commissioner, that it is a near certainty that that bill will pass. It has very strong support from the leadership in both the house and the senate. So the issue is not whether it will pass, but whether there are any additional changes that the court would like to ask us to work on. The listhat you originally prepared as has been indicated is reflected in the current draft of 35 3588. I have not reviewed the senate bill.
>> it's identical as far as i've compared. I've compared each page, but I didn't read each one.
>> we do have some work to maintain that is through the process, but they are in there right now.
>> but I guess as far as my initial review of the summarized portion of the bill, I saw a lot of things as far as dealing with rail and some of the other transportation issues. And my question is and still will be how did that affect the commuter rail district that's been established? Under state statute, who is going to be authority here when it comes to rail? What takes precedent? I really don't -- I see transportation folks, txdot, and then -- you know as far as the bill is concerned, but then I know there has been a computer [indiscernible] district that's supposed to deal with freight rail and passenger. A whole lot of things. Who would have ultimate authority? I guess that's the question --
>> I think what this bill allows is anything can happen.
>> pardon me?
>> anything can happen almost in the future. It remains to be seen how this bill basically allows a lot of different entities the authority to stepin sort of at their discretion and pick up any pieces including rail. Transtexas railway, they could contract with the r.m.a., With a local entity, through an exclusive development agreement with a private company. This basically opens the door wide open to all sorts of different kinds of business situations. And that's the point of the bill is to allow for flexibility.
>> Commissioner, I might comment, your concern is well taken, and in fact, dart in dallas, I understand, does have some concerns that they have openly expressed about the bill because it has the potential to have other entities than them be responsible for aspects of rail within that region. Their concern has not been vocalized by other transit authorities such as cap metro or via in san antonio. And I can't really tell you exactly why that is other than obviously dart is much bigger, has a very substantial rail system in place already, and, you know, this is a real thing to them today. But my understanding is that there are some amendments under consideration that would accommodate their position and might address some issues that you might envision arising in this region at some point.
>> I would like to add also that it does grant rule-making authority under all the different articles that it has, several different articles. So there will be details that will have to be worked out when the rules get published. So I have a feeling that some of that is going to come out at that point in time and then there will be more positioning and review and discussion on all those different details that we're talking about right now that are not very clear.
>> I might just add to that my perception of this bill, as is the case with many bills that this legislature is considering, I think if they had a comparison of the number of gigantic bills that are as big as books that are being considered this session compared to previous sessions, this session would win by far. We just haven't seen bills like this, so many of them in past sessions, and in my opinion, these bills are works in progress, even after they pass. They are going to be evolutionary things. They are going to be amended for each of the next several sessions because of intended consequences, because of problems that people didn't envision, because of changes that other entities feel strongly need to be made and the legislature agrees. My guess is that as we all begin to understand how this transportation bill can work or will work, there will be a significant bill next session which makes some adjustments to it.
>> well, the other area is that they will be able to take unsolicited proposals. That kind of goes around the purchasing procedures that have been in place for the state and for local -- for counties. So, I mean, the purchasing act was put in order to keep certain things from happening and keeping everything above board, and now -- and now in this one it's out.
>> well, the transportation commission is -- does take unsolicited proposals as well as the r.m.a. We have now, so county procedures are a lot different, and that's one of the reasons why they established r.m.a.s was to make things go a little faster as to -- which sometimes it interferes with public review process.
>> the democratic process.
>> it's not like the unsolicited proposal means that you don't have to wait until a board says now we're ready to talk about s.h. 45 southeast. Somebody on their own initiative can do that. The board always has the ability to say thank you very much, take this back. We do not care to initiate it. If they do decide to accept unsolicited proposal, they are required to then say we're going to put this out for open solicitation, and it shortens the amount of time somebody might have to respond. It basically puts a very short time fuse on initiating a proposal that will be open to competitive solicitation. It just means that the asking for this to happen is happening from the audience as opposed to you wait around for the board to say well now we're ready to do it. If somebody has a great idea, the great idea can come forward and the board always has the ability to say no thank you, please take your envelope back, we're not ready to deal with this right now, but it will always be a solicited, competitive process once you get there. It's not like somebody gets to say here's an unsolicited proposal, oh, goody, I asked, I get it. That's not the case.
>> Commissioner, I think if I could put that even in a bigger picture context, I think the legislature's frustration, Commissioner Gomez, has been that they have received non-stop feedback for many years now that the process of building major roads just takes too long. That txdot in particular -- not so much the counties, but txdot, the process and the system and the structure is too slow. And the Texas turnpike authority, for example, was an attempt in central Texas really to help speed that up. The e.d.a.s were an attempt to help exclusive developer, and I think the authors of this bill, that is central to their thinking is they want to know what they can do to make the process go faster because, as all of you know, around the major urban areas of the state now, transportation has literally risen to a number one or number two quality of life issue. So they are bound and determined, I think, to help find an answer to that. The pendulum may spring farther perhaps than it should in their efforts to address this problem, and I suspect that there will be legislation that fine tunes this over the next several years.
>> yes.
>> so just basically setting the format or the ground work for modification I guess in 50 years, because I don't know -- I haven't heard anything from dallas far as their rapid transit, dart, nor san antonio, nor I don't think capital metro may have even taken a position on this.
>> they have their own legislative teams working on those issues.
>> yeah, okay, so just hearing all those different perspectives, I guess I'm just kind of concerned, but my basic question was who would have the ultimate authority, but allowing persons to piecemeal into the process whatever transportation things that need to be looked at, I guess, that's -- you know, that's just part of it. But it does appear to me that at this point this type of legislation is going to be looked at very closely for -- for fine tuning, I guess is the proper word that I would like to maybe disclose especially when it comes to the transportation needs and also other entities having input into this that already exist and already have a responsibility for such transportation needs for the area. So that was basically why I posed the question that I did.
>> we'll have it back on next week in the event there are sprefk recommendations. -- specific recommendations. Is there another bill?
>> that's it.
>> the last item, judge, that we just have been asked to mention by staff is the fact that the appropriations conference committee has begun meeting. They didn't meet last night, they posted for last night. I'm sure they will meet today. The counties and other public entities have a very clear interest in the higher dollars allocated in one bill or the other for various health and human service issues, for example, as well as a number of other areas, and we are in the process -- we just want to report to the court that as a result of all the work that's been done up to this point by your staff, we are in the process of identifying some specific areas where we're going to urge your delegation to be supportive of one version or the other of the conference committee.
>> okay.
>> [inaudible]. There's one other bill we talked about in our meeting, house bill 2599 by [indiscernible]. It related to creating a court cost in the county court of appeals of which we are a member that the Commissioners court would set, and then we would forward basically to the third court of appeals. We would be collecting court cots on all the civil cases filed in our county, probate and district courts. This is similar to other state court costs that we have that we collect, and our suggestion in the committee was, well, why don't we get them to add the authority for us to keep the 10% administrative fee that we do on other state court costs. And bob and chris thought that we ought to run this by you before they went and tried to get this added to this bill.
>> move approval.
>> second. That's consistent with what we do on everything else is that it recognizes the administrative cost recaptud taken state gets to keep 90% of the money.
>> right.
>> all in favor. That passes by unanimous vote with Commissioner Davis temporarily away.
>> thank you, carolyn.
>> anything else? Thank you all very much. [indiscernible] you would rather have it at 11:00 next week?
>> it's going to be a difficult week no matter what. Whichever the court's favor is.
>> if we do it at 11:00, we stay focused and finish by 12:00.
>> I think there's some senate hearings going on now [indiscernible] they are going to be in session at that time.
>> thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, May 6, 2003 7:52 PM