Travis County Commssioners Court
July 1, 2003
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Added Item A1
Now, a 1 a is receive briefing .'04 budget parameters. A 1 b, consider and take actions necessary to establish collection rate, option am homestead exemptions and debt buy downs. I guess a really is just a briefing on the budget parameters, right?
>> correct.
>> no action is required.
>> you should have under a one basic documented which is a letter dated June 24th, a two-page summary of budget parameters. And in short, relatively little has changed since the last work session where you were briefed on the current parameters on may 29th. We are currently expecting to balance the budget at the effective tax rate. Up date of properties shows that the effective tax rate would be 49-62. It was 49-61. I have been reminded more than once by at least one of you that that is a tax rate, not the tax rate. That is a tax rate that we are using for planning purposes. That is a tax rate that you should expect to see in the preliminary budget and a tax rate that I知 sure some of you will wish to discuss. The result of that tax rate would be an increase in the average homestead owner's taxes of $54 a year. And that would be the summary of two pages in the budget parameters show the key that we have to the second revenue estimate showing -- again, this is general fund only of 310,672,000. We have budget targets that we established in March and about a million dollars being reduced from those budget targets due to reduction in the sheriff's alcohol drug offender program and both departments admitting targets less than the target itself. These numbers were what you were seeing back at the end of may. Our reserves are being established at about the same level. Capital acquisition resources account we're using at the current time is a balancing account, that the cash out of the general funds to avoid using debt. We currently have it at 7.1 million. You probably will see that change as we finalize budget numbers. We have the emergency reserve and allocated reserve, a little over $2 million each. Health benefits are at 4.5 million. Will you see there's a shortfall of $1.2 million which we're expecting to coming oust risk management reserve and an expenditure planned for retirement benefits. The last time we had a briefing we were looking at departmental reductions of about $2.2 million. As we've gone through the process, we believe that we can responsibly reduce our budget by $3.4 million. We're in just about the middle of all the various departmental meetings. And those have gone reasonably well. You will also see a list of departmental reductions we have not recommended, that we do not believe are responsible, that you may or may not wish to discuss during the budget hearing or continuation of the budget process. We have lease reductions of $570,000 and lower salary savings and related benefits of $1.3 million due to a group problem in one sense and that is that we have low vacancy rates and therefore salary savings are not going to be as great, plus we have the green circle program when departments are internally funding through permanent salary savings the green circle employees. And we believe it's responsible to accommodate to that dynamic. We have maintenance and current effort requests $2.8 million, and that's for various contractual obligations, increasing postage, various maintenance requirements, and statutory obligations. You know about health and human services and the impact that both the economy as well as state actions have had. We currently are looking at slightly over a million dollar augmentation to hhs which would be elimination of tobacco reserve dollars as well as another $800,000 so that if there would be a total of $950,000 to the department for health and social services purposes as well as an 8 $7,000 insurance premium increase for city employees -- county reimbursed city employees. Indigent attorney fees, we've had a long and rich discussion for over a year on that. We are finding over a million dollars -- slightly over a million dollars to accommodate the indigent attorney fees and would hope that 404 -- for '04 that is budgeted properly. With the exception of capital cases, which are always unknown, that we get the indigent attorney fee budget properly established. Balcones canyonlands, that was zero the last time we talked and that was because we did not know what was happening in the tax incremental financing program for the balcones canyon land. That's going to be slightly over a million dollars. Transfer from the general fund due to increased property values in essence in the balcones area. What was desired to happen is happening which is new value, and that value then, the incremental increase in the new value is transferred to the balcones canyonland fund to allow good environmental programs to be implemented. We also have divided three new capital expenditures into maintenance and operation requirements. One is new parks. Slightly over half a million dollars in requirement to open new parks, and we are anticipating additional park fees. We know that you are going to be discussing that at some length with t.n.r. Folk, but we believe that those park fees are responsible and reasonable and will avoid the kind of public policy issues you raised the last time you raised new park fees. We have slightly over half a million dollars for maintenance, cuss towed yul for those new buildings and we have the combined communication center which know quite well which is opening in October. We have a balanced budget. We have just about $6 million worth of deductions. And we are continuing to work with the departments and expected to file a budget July 23rd and start budget hearings a week later. I think it's August 7th that your budget hearings will begin. I suspect the budget hearings will not be as long as they have been in the past. We are hearing frequently from departments -- well, this is not the year to ask for fill in the blank. And there's also a recognition that the court has considerable challenges ahead in terms of being able to balance the budgeted. At the same time we do not have a fiscal crisis that we have some challenges and we'll be able to meet them.
>> well, I think also the expenditures as we look at them, is there is something for everybody throughout the county. And so that's pretty good balancing. What Commissioners court has done.
>> I think it's also very interesting that there have already occurred before it's even reached our place been proposed reductions that p.b.o. Have talked about to help fund all of this. There wasn't assumption of, well, let's just ask for more money. There's already been a [inaudible] work is cut if I can use that analogy, a penny on the tax roll of ways we can figure. And I think Commissioner is correct in saying this is a starting point, this is not the ending point. We will start our gd work from here. And we need to talk about some of the assumptions. The thing that I had let t.n.r. Know about a week ago because we had some of these audits that appeared on our budget has to do with the balcones canyon land. There was a huge discrepancy between the original number we got from the folks as to what was the bcp property and reality. It turns out however it happened a lot of them were not properly being displayed and we now see a much bigger number than what we thought might have been out there. It seems to me since this is all related to things, platting and coming on the rolls, there are a lot of what i'll call bcp plats coming before Commissioners court. Last week re had two of them. Huge platting activity occurring in steiner ranch. We already know steiner is a where a lot of this is happening. There needs to be a way to coordinate what the coming through the the t.n.r. Through the platting process. There was a huge disconnect this year of somehow hundreds of millions -- not hundreds of millions, but close to $80 million worth of property that just somehow lost its little bcp flag. And it was a lot of work that was put in by the t.n.r. Staff to basically say, you lost some of these properties and they need to be put back on.
>> t.n.r. Did a great job of tracking the new parcels coming on. What had happened at tcad, some of the properties that went on in previous years did not roll forward to the current year and i've and assured that is corrected so we won't run into this. We immediately recognized there was something wrong once we got the number of parcels. That's the reason for the recalculation. And, you know, it's interesting that now the transfer of -- around $3 million. This is the incremental amount, that it's very close to the projection that was made over six years ago on what this t.i.f. Would produce.
>> and that enables us to cull down federal funds, we get a three to one match. That 3 million allows us to pull down 9 so you get $12 million worth of buying power on the grants and development is paying for that to occur.
>> I guess many thanks to the departments for helping find an additional 1.2 million over the last time we saw the report.
>> sure.
>> [inaudible] communication center number.
>> how firm? Very firm. That's why it's down to the dollar. When you see a round number from your planning and budget office, you can assume that's kind of not bad, but not firm. When you see a number down to the dollar, that is what will be in the preliminary budget, and we believe it's contractually driven.
>> one of the things I know that I wanted to discuss and I知 not sure if we're there yet or if that's a b part of this, has to do with our homestead exemptions for 65 and older and the [inaudible]. I'll defer to whenever we get to that, but I do want to --
>> that's b. I can give you quick overview on that.
>> one other thing, have we gotten an update on the communications center?
>> 331 was identified a year ago. Not to that precise number, but it would be over -- I think we estimated one two, one four a year ago. We've been expecting this.
>> I think we ought to talk with danny because I think that the involved parties may be scaling down that a little bit. Because of the economy is why I ask the question. So I think I would -- I would touch base and make sure that -- if it's firm, so be it. But if we can do less, then -- other than doing less, "-.
>> I also think there may be some changes in the way in which we revenue share. So that there may be some new laws that allow different kinds of ways of handling different kinds of revenue.
>> the 911.
>> exactly. Exactly.
>> the stuff happened at the state legislature, we previously had to use property taxes for, we may have another source, which is a good sign.
>> we'll follow up with danny.
>> okay. I知 ready for b.
>> we should have two documents from us on item b. One is backup to the work session on '04 budget dated June 25th. And you also have a letter from [inaudible] about equalizing allocated reserve dated June 26th. In short, before we move on to the question of the assumptions behind effective tax rate plain, I gave you a copy of a display ad that would -- is our tradition upon public hearing prior to the filing of the preliminary budget, this public hearing was going to be on July 9th. A number of you were not going to be here so we suggested -- [inaudible] July 16th. And with your concurrence,e would put this ad in the Austin american-statesman on July 13th to then let folk know who are interested in the county's budget as well as services provided by the county can come and express opinions to you. Sometimes there are -- the number of people is subject to the -- their own schedules and interests. So with that, with your concurrence, we'll go ahead and put this in the paper and it's on your calendars.
>> a question I want to make sure that -- and I think you brought that point up early yes about one of the persons wanting to ensure the number, the effective tax rate that we're looking at the 49-62, a proposal, my efforts as i've stated before to stay at the crint tax rate as much as possible to 46-60. There's some things I think that's still going to come up to help us reduce what this effective tax rate is -- is being proposed here today and look at, of course, those things come about, and I know we're going through a budget process to make sure that we try to bring as many things to the table as possible. I知 basically looking at no revenue generating things to make sure that we drive this figure down from 46.62 and possibly getting down to 46.60 at the current tax rate. I知 just letting you know that's where I知 coming from and I really don't support even at this effective tax rate. I think we can -- and I think we all -- I don't think no one up here is not trying to make sure that we save the taxpayers as much money as we possibly can. I think all of us are looking at that, but there are some things I know I would like to propose later to whereby I think we can get the additional revenue here in the general fund to ensure that we don't have a need to increase taxes even at the effective tax rate. So I知 just letting you know that, so until I can -- until I can get this before the court to look at ways to generate revenue to reduce what we're talking about here, that's basically where I知 coming from. And it is a process we have to go through; however, I知 just electricity you know where I知 -- letting you know where I知 coming from. And also the court.
>> this is a a little thing, but I知 noticing in our ad, the word "priorities" never appears there. And it's really more of what should be in or out, increased or decreased. And sometimes what I知 seeking from from folks is they don't really know if this is a line item they want in or out, it's real what I are their priorities in terms of where the money ought to be spent. And that word is not in there, and I知 just wondering if there is some wordsmithing. Rather than it's what should or should not be included in the budget, it's really hearing from the public what their priorities are for funding. And what should services -- services should be increased or decreased. But rather what's in our out, I really would like to see the word "priorities" figured in.
>> the word "priorities" used to be a word that a prior court with a different leadership didn't like, and therefore with this court, with this leadership likes the word "priorities," I知 happy to put it in.
>> I知 just one person, and I really would like to hear where you want to spend the money. What's important to you. Sometimes they don't know it's line item whatever about what's in our out. Sometimes they don't have the line item knowledge of what we do over here, but they have a general sense of what it is they would like for us to accomplish. So that's more of a goals oriented request as opposed to expecting that somebody knows line by line where we spend our money.
>> how about if it said the Commissioners court is interested in hearing about priorities for funding from the public. And what services should be increased or decreased recognizing most county services are financed through the property tax. How is that?
>> I personally love it.
>> do your colleagues love it?
>> I am all right with it.
>> why don't I take the risk and make the change and --
>> [inaudible].
>> I just read it. What it would say is the Commissioners court is interested in hearing about priority funding from the public and what services should be increased or decreased recognizing most county services are increased through property tax. Travis County elected the following officials in these broad areas, health and -- general government, support services.
>> with your concurrence, i'll just put it in the paper. Would that --
>> that's fine.
>> when will the ad basically go out?
>> July 13th it will appear in the metro section approximately the size you see. A little bigger than a quarter page.
>> and that would be justice to do the local papers?
>> it will be in the Austin american-statesman. That has been our tradition the last decade around this time. None of this is written into any law or requirement. It has been an optional request that Commissioners courts have made to hear from the public about anything that occurs on the radar screen prior to the filing of the preliminary budget, the theory being that should you hear something that you wish to provide guidance to budget builders, that you would do so and we would put it in the preliminary budget. On the other hand, if there is other kind of input you would want to consider after the preliminary budget is submitted to you, then you would do so during budget hearings or budget [inaudible]. I must say there has not been an overwhelming parade of people, but it doesn't mean it wouldn't happen now. [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> preliminary budget will be out before the state?
>> no. It would be out after the date.
>> what would we share with the participants at the public hearing? The -- the assumptions that we looked at in a?
>> well, we can share whatever you want shared. The assumptions listed in a would be a fairly simple way of -- of doing that. The theory behind this public hearing was not consciously not to say the budget is established. Now, react to it. But to say the budget is still fluid. What would you like to have us do, if you would like us to -- to cut the tax rate by two or three cents, where would we find 12 or $18 million. And have members of the public share that information with you.
>> it's a work in progress.
>> yeah.
>> any more discussion of the motion?
>> no, not really.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> may I offer a suggestion? In terms of the information to have for that hearing, remember the breakdown you all did for us related to, you know, I think that is a two-page little summary of where the money goes and is extraordinarily helpful breaking it down more than just, well, we spend a lot [indiscernible], I found that very helpful related to dollar amount and percentages that I think other members of the public might find interesting as well.
>> we will do so and have copies available. You have also in your backup a letter from dusty knight, informing me and you that there are several items that the Commissioners court must consider when establishing tax rates. [papers shuffling - audio interference] there are four basic assumptions. [papers shuffling - audio interference] the optional homestead exemption, 65,000, over 65, and 5,000 or 20% for all. Third historical exemptions, which are currently 100% of the structure, 50% on the land and a debt buy-down use you thinking year end balances for the bond or general fund. Those are assumptions that need to be made. They are made every year and by the court. We have a -- we have a letter from nelda wells spears advising us that these decisions need to be made by July 21st. The last date when all of you will be here, July 15th, next Tuesday, two of you are gone, we have been advised by Commissioner Daugherty's office that he would like to consider the historical exemption when he returns. Not that he would -- necessarily wants to make any changes, but he wants to look at it, understand it, look at the data and came co-to a conclusion whether he wishes to discuss that conclusion with you. So sometimes historical exemptions are also tied to the optional homestead exemption because it is an exemption. So we have -- I知 passing along a request to avoid a decision on those two items at least, so Commissioner Daugherty can review the data. But with that, we d have specific proposals for you, unless you want to talk about the homestead exemption and the historical exemption dealing with debt buy-down. We have a letter from -- from [indiscernible], I should note that I have consulted with Commissioner Daugherty's office and there's no disagreement with the plan. It's what we have done in the past which is equalize the reserves in the debt service fund and ins fund.
>> [indiscernible] I don't have a problem with delaying the optional thing as well. I wanted to kind of like set out a couple of talking points that people can be thinking about between now and then. If you were going to wait for a full court related to the exemptions and the quick and dirty on this is that i've been on this court now for 8 years and it's been at 65,000. We have seen --
>> for over 65.
>> for over 65 excuse me, for disabled and over 65 for both of those categories. And over that 8 years, those properties continue to gain in value. Thrarchd what I think is an extraordinarily generous allowance coupled with the 20%, it's eroded in terms of what it's really doing and by a very modest increase in that exemption. I was thinking 5,000, take it up to 70,000. We are helping work against some of that erosion of the value of that exemption, but it is also going to be something that will -- we will call attention to what the exemption is if we change it. If it doesn't change for a while, sometimes people don't know about it, don't appreciate it, don't see it, et cetera. If there is a change, however slight or modest, it does force folks to take a look at it. It's something that, you know, the radios and tv stations and the newspaper will make people aware of because it's different from what it was and different in a positive way related to the over 65 and disabled and that was probably what I heard from, Commissioner Davis, last year as we were going through the process is that those who are -- many of our most vulnerable related to their property taxes, they are frozen on their taxes with the school district but that is not the situation at the county. While we offer a very generous number, the value of it has eroded over all of these years because their properties are continuing, they are not looking at these properties as being investment value. This is their home. They are not moving. Anything that we can do to help keep that value what it is, I would be very interested in a modest increase in that number. In large part to call attention to what the number is.
>> do we know about how many eligible over 65's take advantage of the exemption?
>> yes, sir. This is back when we have 29,000 people that are currently in the over 65 exemption, at the -- at the $65,000 limit currently. So if you were to add -- if you were to take the $5,000 additional exemption times the 29,000 properties, that would give you the amount of lost value or taxes that you would be losing for this next year.
>> okay. My question, though, is 60 or 29,000, to take advantage of the opportunity, but do we know how many are eligible?
>> no, sir, I have no idea. I know that the appraisal district does attempt to contact people to make sure that they are aware of it. I can tell that you the tax office, any time that we are dealing with anyone, we make sure that they are getting the over 65 exemption, because that certainly helps with their delinquent property taxes.
>> do we know what kind of outreach the central Travis County appraisal district does?
>> I think that they have been writing letters to these individuals.
>> I think we might look at that, because to be honest it didn't surprise me how many are not, how many attended various forums really were not aware of the exemptions. It could be that they were getting them anyway, but there were places where I didn't expect that. Like a big meeting at webber place, well attended, it seemed like more than half the people there were seniors. Some of them were kind of surprised that we were talking taxes, some were surprised that there was a $65,000 exemption on top of the 20%. So I mean I guess -- in my view we could look at that. The other thing is in the end if our aim is to try to keep the tax rate low, then even if we grant another $5,000, I don't know that I would increase the tax rate by that much. The message that I would send is we think taxpayers are entitled to 5,000 to 65 or older or disabled, and we are going to --
>> reductions [multiple voices]
>> at the same time, to me the question for the county is what we ought to put -- whether we ought to put a little more effort in getting out the word about the availability of it or whether the increase gets us more. The other thing is that during the forums is when I realized to apply for the exemption, you go to the travis central appraisal district not Travis County.
>> right.
>> even to get the application. I didn't know that. I had been here years. But it had never come up. So when I think -- there are some things to look at. If we are serious about this, then I would rather have two or three people sort of looking at it, giving us like a written list of the facts and recommendations for -- before you think we ought to move on it.
>> yeah.
>> in the end, though, I知 hearing basically the demands that we use the tax rate from where it needs to be for us to achieve the funding level set out in the preliminary documents based on assumptions. And in order to do that, I think we have to be a little bit more proactive about different things, not only raising revenue, but also decreasing expenditures. And I知 game for any of that. Oh just think that what -- I just think that whatever we do, we ought to have a few more facts.
>> I can make the commitment to you that -- to go back, look at the voter data base, which would tell people are at least registered to vote, over 65, compare that with our tax data base and try to come up with a number that there are over 65 registered to vote, but they are not on the -- on the -- they have property and they are not having the exemption. If you come back to give you some kind of magnitude, if we were to start trying to do a campaign or whatever the magnitude of that would be. I think that I could get all of that worked up pretty quickly.
>> plus all the -- call the travis central appraisal district and ask them how do you notify people of the exemption opportunity? Especially for those 65 years of age or older and disabled.
>> there are some cases where people don't know that they need to file for their own exemption. [multiple voices] some people are missing that, too.
>> for me, i'll tell you on every single person that I looked up in t cad, they had it, they didn't realize it because they weren't looking to see what the exemption was. Where I was kinds of going on this, this is again if we go where christian is heading us, that is just a giant gatt tick if, if we make that assumption, the annual impacts about $54 per year if we get through this process the way it is today, which of course it isn't. But it's about $54. The information we got from dusty, related to the number of folks it would save them $23 on the tax. That would cut the proposed where we might land in half. That -- that interested me greatly that in terms of property tax relief, for a very targeted group of folks, that is something that that's real. If it's 50 a year and you knock off 23 related to 65 and disabled, that is a real kind of thing. I would be going to try and find the -- the revenue is to find half a million in cuts to be able to make it so you would not adjust the effective tax rate upwards in order to make it happen. I think in a $300 million budget it is entirely possible to find a half a million dollars to basically make this a cost neutral, but to provide real relief to folks 65 and older and elderly. And disabled. The big thing for me is it has to be with the erosion of the benefit. Kind of like where the esd folk are being capped out at 10 cents. That 10 cents on the tax rate 20 years ago bought a lot of stuff. But that 10 cents now it's eroded in terms of the value. That's where I was trying to get to make sure that this $65,000 exemption really met that because they have seen their appraised values go up far more than that over the last 8 years, therefore it -- it's not kept pace with what's going on with the values. So that was one of the things that I was also aiming for is to get that value back to -- to where it is in terms of and you have setting what's -- and you have setting -- offsetting what's happening with the appraised value.
>> also in September with the vote on being able to freeze for over 65, assuming that that will also get the interest out to a lot of people on this particular thing, this will be the -- one of the constitutional amendments where the jurisdictions [indiscernible] like the school does currently.
>> the last time I looked at a real example, we are offering a whole lot more than the --
>> yeah.
>> -- evaluation in terms of -- if in fact that takes place, that will help get out the word Travis County offers homestead exemption plus on top of that, for those over 65 years of age, $65,000. The question is what does that get you? Really if your home is valued at $200,000, we would tax it as though it were valued at 95,000. So we tax is at less than half the value. If we freeze the value, at wherever it is, then it would take eons for you to get that much benefit, I think. And so I would pull several real-life examples, kinds of look at those. The other thing is that if I知 a senior out there, I would appreciate the county offering me another $5,000. But if we bump the tax rate up a little bit for that same as everybody else, 10%, the joy. What I知 hearing some say, though, is that we ought to place a little more effort on reducing the tax rate from 49 on down. And I don't know that we can do both. But I do know there's a whole lot of benefit in us reducing the tax rated for everybody, including over 65's. My guess is probably about half of those eligible now take advantage of it. Whether the others don't take advantage of it because they don't know, choose not to, but part of that is maybe getting out a better job to make sure that they know. That is the forums that I had. Once people realize that, then their next question was, well, how do I access that? And to be honest the first time I asked the question, was put to me, I said I don't know but I will find out. I thought that I would come to the county and find out. Actually go to the travis central appraisal district. But a small committee, Commissioner Sonleitner is interested in this.
>> very interested in working on it.
>> -- dusty has some ideas.
>> christian who --
>> I will be there because I知 very interested.
>> [multiple voices]
>> any objections for working on this issue -- [multiple voices]
>> address also the disabled, also.
>> the disabled was absolutely included, it wasn't just over 65, it was disabled.
>> I understand that. [multiple voices]
>> looking at really as I said earlier, looking at coming from the effective tax rate, [indiscernible], 62, working down ward, that would be my whole attitude. But asking that, by saying that, let me ask tcad basically looked as much as possible, any more surprises as far as commercial real estate assessment, everything has been settled on that, we don't expect any surprises, any additional stuff for them on commercial real estate if.
>> they certify on July 25th. [multiple voices]
>> so we haven't got a full knowledge of --
>> not final final [multiple voices] the chief appraiser is advising us that he's got a very tight bead on the numbers that he's providing us and therefore we should not see big surprises.
>> okay. That's -- I was really concerned about that. So July 25th would be -- would be from t cad.
>> right. What we do, we will file [indiscernible] on July 23rd. We basically in the last minute say any last changes? And I mean historically the answer has been no. So we go with an anticipated estimate of the final certified tax roll, historically the way tcad works is they are very, very good, by the time they get to thatpoint they really know within a gnat's eye lash where they will land, that's a technical term.
>> let's figure out what we need to get done.
>> I would like to say one other thing. In the spirit of peopl certified tax roll, historically the way tcad works is they are very, very good, by the time they get to thatpoint they really know within
Last Modified: Wednesday, July 1, 2003 5:52 AM