Travis County Commssioners Court
May 27, 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 39
Now, we indicated our intention to call up at 11:00 the legislative item. That is item no. 30 a, discussion legislative items and proposed build. 39, 39 a, 39 b consider other bills if any in response to actions taken by the legislature. And take appropriate action.
>> can I just ask a scheduling question here. It seems likely this is going to take us into the lunch hour. Is that your sense? Because I see the hhs people sitting here. I can't see them being a five minute item. I'm just trying to get a sense here of whether it's after lunch for those folks.
>> does that answer your question, stephen? We want to get out of here at 12 noon. I know that chris has plenty of stuff for us.
>> good morning.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners. What I would like to do this morning is just hit a couple of highlights of some major bills. As all of you know, we are down to the last few days of this current legislative session. Several of the deadlines for the bills to pass have already come and gone. At this point what is happening to a great extent is various dead bills are being revived by placing them on to other bills. I have -- I can honestly say that i've never seen quite as much of that type of activity as i've seen this session. If we had a contest for gigantic thick bills this session, it would far exceed any previous efforts. Let me comment on a few things that the court has had particular interest in. First with respect to the budgets. It is almost unbelievable to me that we are sitting here in may and it does appear to me that legislature is going to pass a budget bill without new taxes. I think that with a tiny caveat, there are a number of revenue raising measures in this budget that charge increased fees or assess fees in a way that's different or whatever. So it would -- would it not be correct to say there's no new revenue raised by the way the legislature has put this budget together. But there is no tax bill, certainly no significant tax bill associated with this budget. So the legislature started off roughly $10 billion in the hole and they have constructed a budget which will largely leave intact and human services spending that we visited with the court about and about its potential impact to Travis County and other counties several times as one example. Many of you may have seen in the last few days announcement from washington that senators cornyn and hump son secured -- hutchinson secured some federal dollars. Those have come into play. I think Commissioner Davis you may have asked me about this a week or two weeks ago, those have actually come into play in a way that enables the state to pretty much restore the funding for medicaid and chips and a number of other health and human services programs. Let me hasten to say, this is a little bit like somebody painting a very, very bleak picture and then, you know, it end up not being quite that bleak. So you think that it's a huge victory. I should say that -- that there are still reductions being made from current spending as I understand it and almost -- in almost all of those areas. There's certainly -- there certainly are some reductions in the higher education area, although largely higher education has been restored. Part of the deal there was to immediately deregulate tuition. So we are going to see tuition rise quickly and immediately at our state's public schools. But -- but largely, the money that was the biggest difference between the house and the senate for a long time was about a half a billion dollars in the higher education parts of the budget and basically the senate prevailed on -- on that part of the budget. The half a billion dollars is basically restored. So the net result is that we have a budget that spends, don't quote me on these numbers, but these are pretty close, 58.6 billion in general revenue compared to 61 billion in general revenue in the current biennium, so our reduction -- a reduction of 2.4 billion roughly.
>> could you repeat those numbers again for me.
>> the numbers that I read Commissioner, these are probably off about some relatively small factor, 58.6 billion total general revenue.
>> okay.
>> versus 61 billion total general revenue in the current biennium. But all funds spending increases from 114 billion in the current biennium to 118 billion. So there's actually an increase in total spending in this budget versus the current budget. And that is attributable to some significant extent to drawing down federal dollars in new and creative and better ways or just simply more money being made available in the last several days. Right now it sound like a better outcome than any of us frankly could have hoped for. I would not suggest to you, judge, that there will still be some negative impact to counties from this budget. But I do think that it is dramatically less than what we had feared most of this session and had worked with your staff and the Commissioners in terms of our thinking on. So -- so that's a big change.
>> it is.
>> I would just quickly mention a couple of other bills to you. First house bill 3588, which is the omnibus transportation bill has found a substantially different form in the senate that be it -- than it had in the house. I would not try to summarize those differences for you, but I will tell you that the specific provisions that Travis County was interested in in consulting with tom nuckols this morning are in both bills. So that bill will go to conference committee, but our stuff is on both sides, so it ought to be okay.
>> can I make one clarification.
>> yes, sir.
>> on the issue about the airports, senator ogden's bill takes away the ability of an r.m.a. To do airports, period. Therefore they did not carry forward that language on the location of the airport. So -- so obviously if -- if airports get added back in, we will want to see that language come back in with it.
>> yeah.
>> but -- clarification. > a second bill that tom has been working on, I will mention to the court, house bill 1204, the e.t.j. Bill that senator wentworth and baxter have been carry, senator wentworth passed that bill out of senate committee last week and he added on to that bill the provisions of.
>> the bill 1631 -- the provisions of senate bill 1631 which would impose impact fees by the county. Impose impervious cover requirements and other things. The builders testified against 1631 and were strongly opposed to 1631 and they were strongly opposed to senator wentworth's action to put that on to 12004, which -- 1204 which in kind of a general way I would say they strongly supported. 1204 the main provisions of it did reflect a compromise between various builder interests, the Texas municipal league, the city of Austin was very involved, Travis County has had a number of inputs to that bill as well. I am of the understanding that it is senator wentworth's intention to take out some portions of 1631, specifically the portions relating to impact fees and impervious cover, and with those changes that bill should move forward and be concurred with by representative baxter had the bill comes back to -- when the bill comes back to the house. Time is so short on that, that I really wonder if all that is going to get done. But it is my understanding that that is the plan. Then the last one I would just mention, in -- April is here, she may be able to clarify this. One of the issue that's we have been watching, there have been some developments on just in the last 24 or 48 hours, is the omnibus bill that creates a new district court. The version that passed out of the house committee does include a new district court for Travis County. There have been some changes subsequent to that, some amendments that were made, which I have not been able to fully review because they were in a format that I can't look at. I think bob may have it in front of you. Can you clarify, bob, whether those changed the committee substitute?
>> yeah. There's -- substantially it did not. There's something news and bad news. The good news is Travis County does get a -- a court but the effective date is September of 2005. So the -- they are recognizing the need for an additional district, civil district court in Travis County, but the funding won't be there, we will have to look for that funding next time around in the 2005 session.
>> but that's related to the funding for the judge.
>> correct.
>> because the reality is that's a very small number compared to the challenge of this organization to come up with the approximately one million it takes to run a state district courtroom. So -- we all have challenges in terms of having plenty of time to be able to respond, if indeed it does pass.
>> and then bob I wonder, one last bill that we should give the court a brief report on is the sovereign immunity bill, I know that bob worked on that over the weekend.
>> senate bill 1017 by wentworth and nixon ended up passing over the weekend and we had substantial involvement from the judge and the county attorney staff. They all did a great job. The -- it took the -- the plan was not to have any amendments on the bill except for an amendment that the very stakeholders had agreed to. But there were several other amendments put on and we were able to put on a -- a third -- a third reading amendment that -- that corrected some language that presented some problems in terms of the presentment statute. And whether or not someone could sue the county in an injunction situation. Before there was an amendment put on in second reading where you have to give 60 days notice to the court and representative king had introduced an amendment to say but an injunction situation where you come in and ask for temporary restraining order, you need immediate relief, he wanted an exception for that. Everybody recognized the need for that and some circumstances you can't wait the 60 days. So that amendment went on, but there was an added that the county attorneys developed with the author's that I think everybody was happy with in the end. There was also an amendment to add the architects to the bill. There was some debate whether or not they were involved in the original draft anyway, but in the end the architects are in there. So that the -- that the -- the final bill now is limited to a contract -- to contractors and architects and sale of goods in relationship to those type of contracts.
>> we should also mention that there was an attempt to put hcr 223 on that bill, by representative harknet spoken against by representative keel and representative harknet's amendment failed to adopt.
>> what had happened, representative nixon was not there, representative keel presented the bill for him and did a real good job, we all thought, in terms of protecting the bill. So we were thankful to representative keel for that.
>> 223 is the [indiscernible] resolution.
>> yes.
>> 223 is a [indiscernible] resolution?
>> yes, sir.
>> we need to acknowledge the assistance of representative krusee as well when that was making its way through the committee structure. He was of great assistance to Travis County and ought to be acknowledged as well for his help.
>> 223 is it still in the calendar's committee?
>> yes. It was not set. So conceivably it could pop up somewhere else, we are watching for it. But I think the chances are getting more remote for that.
>> so right now the house is -- has approved 1017 as amended. It goes back to the senate. A a -- if the senate sponsor agrees, it's passed.
>> exactly.
>> the senate sponsor has indicated the staff of the senate sponsor has indicated that their recommendation is going to be to concur with house amendments.
>> well, the sponsors agree, does it still go back to the whole senate?
>> yes, they would have an up or down votto concur with house amendments.
>> okay.
>> they couldn't amend it at that time. It was -- it would simply be up or down.
>> okay.
>> well, unless staff has -- has anything --
>> I have a couple of questions before we go to staff. That is the status and where is senate bill 1569 [indiscernible] the situation is -- what's the status of it?
>> there was a complete substitute on that. That looked like an agreed bill. That I faxed over to staff over the weekend. I don't know if they've had a chance to look at it. The bill itself is on the locale door in the senate. It's a house -- local calendar in the senate. It's a house bill --
>> when you say staff, t.n.r. Staff?
>> no, yes, I think I sent a copy to your office as well.
>> over the weekend.
>> over the weekend. It may have been Saturday. Not sure.
>> okay. But -- but it looks -- what they did is they struck the entire bill and then had he had a complete substitute. And it looked, what I have heard from senator barrientos' office, that this was a result of some kind of a compromise among the stakeholders. But whether -- I don't know who all of the stakeholders were and if everybody was satisfied. So we are still trying to run some traps on that.
>> so the language is what? 2212?
>> it's one, two, it's two pages of new language. And I -- we can't determine whether this is -- whether this is -- since we weren't involved in the negotiations, we don't know whether it's helps or hurts to be honest.
>> stakeholders meeting, the people, the elected officials or what are you talking about when you are saying stakeholders?
>> my understanding was everyone that was interested in the bill from was -- from the -- sell lien I don't know if you got involved in that?
>> I have not seen the bill, I will be happy to call mayor gonzalez and check with him, but the first we heard about it was today. The compromise has been worked out, if that indeed has been worked out with mayor gonzalez from webberville, I'm not sure, I will do that right now and get back to you.
>> I need to get a report on that as soon as we can. Also, it is transportation bill, 3588, where are we on that?
>> it's on -- it's on senator ogden has it intoant calendar in the -- intent calendar in the senate today. It may be being debated right now. It's up today.
>> do we know whether or not if there is any mandates, unfunded mandates, amendments, I guess maybe coming into the future that will affect Travis County.
>> there were -- there was a process in the senate committee to review amendments, but -- but what's going to -- we are not going to really know what amendments are going on in the bill until today.
>> until today.
>> today. Then of course it will be the same process. We talked about either the house will concur or there will be appointment of a conference committee. There will -- more than likely there will be the appointment of a conference committee, we will have the opportunity to look at the two drafts and -- and see if there's anything that -- that we need to try to work on.
>> I would just add to that, Commissioner, I think the fear of some communities in that bill was not unfunded mandates, but it was the -- the taking by the state if you will of the local revenue stream related to transportation projects and directing its use in cooperation or coordination with other local entities, so, for example, dart in dallas and metro in houston, the equivalence agencies to capital metro here, had sought various amendments to 3588 to protect them from their local revenue extreme being -- stream being kind of taken over, in a sense, around directed perhaps -- and directed perhaps in ways other than what their boards would want to see.
>> so I guess -- again we won't know anything until late this afternoon or maybe -- I guess the position of all those transportation authorities, as far as -- what was a big concern for me here in Travis County with the central Texas regional mobility authority, my concern is that detecting of revenue also is a possibility. I'm concerned about the bill very much so because one thing that we want to do, my intent dealing with this whole transportation thing was that the revenue stayed here locally and worked from this community, not being taken and used in other places, otherwise it don't make no sense to do it. I'm quite sure there was authority maybe some of the same -- sharing some of the same concerns, i've been preaching up here for a long time. I'm still concerned about it.
>> yeah. There were many -- there were a number of other parts of the state that had the same concern you did. And amendments introduced. Some of those amendments covered the chapter, at least under which capital metro operates. So that we may get some protection from those amendments as well.
>> we will see, we won't know until later on this afternoon, we want to track that hb 3588 I guess, see where we are on that. Let us know.
>> the omnibus transportation bill contain a provision that authorizations the r.m.a.'s to issue funds?
>> yes, sir. Okay.
>> both sides.
>> okay. Could somebody -- translate for me, I'm looking at the very first one on the priority one, hb 1701, is this the one related to upping the limit on our precincts from 3,000 to w5 thousand.
>> the 5,000, that's correct.
>> I see there was another one, I think it was representative eisler had another one, basically there is one that's made it through the process and it's its way to the governor.
>> that's correct.
>> that's a real important one for us. Can you tell me what happened on meet kind if her, what was the end result? Did it die in committee?
>> it just died. There was still some disagreement between the two groups. I think senator barrientos to his credit forged a bit of a compromise, they got it out of committee, he may have even passed it out of the senate. But it did not make it --
>> through the process.
>> okay. What are the next benchmark dates, I mean obviously we have the big one, which is June 2nd, but I mean during the week, what other kinds of benchmarks should we be looking at in terms of things needing to move through the process or else they become passengers looking for other trains?
>> tonight, midnight is a big one. If a bill -- house bill is not passed on second reading by tonight --
>> second reading, okay.
>> then third reading is tomorrow.
>> got it. Thank you.
>> is that time requirement on -- between sprailghts first and second readings in the house? Can you have the first reading at 10:00, the second reading at 11:00? Or is there like a 24 hour delay requirement?
>> in the house traditionally they do that. They have a full day, in the senate they don't. They waive that constitutional rule. Routinely. But in the house they actually wait until the next day, when they refer the bill, they read it the first time, then it will come up on second reading, the final day it will come up for final passage, the next day it will come up for final passage.
>> both the rules and constitution require a layout period, so to speak, judge, but as bob is pointing out, they can be suspended. The house just doesn't do it very often.
>> so if you voted out of the house calendars committee today, when would it hit the floor for the first reading?
>> well, it only goes to calendars after it -- first reading is a referral and then it goes from there to the committee for the committee process, if it comes out of committee then it goes to either the calendars committee or the local and consent calendars committee.
>> if it's in calendars today, right.
>> it's dead.
>> there's no more calendars that are going to be set.
>> the only way such a bill would progress is by being tacked on to other --
>> or some sort of rules suspension which is unlikely.
>> I think Sunday night they set that last calendar for tonight.
>> okay. Anything further?
>> [indiscernible]
>> thank you all very much.
>> thank you.
>> thanks, y'all.
>> anything from staff?
>> second to recess to 1:30. Motion by Commissioner Gomez, seconded by Commissioner Sonleitner. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much.
>> thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, May 27, 2003 7:52 PM