Travis County Commssioners Court
April 6, 2004
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.
Items 26 & 27
26. [no captions]
>> ... Challenges and opportunities and 27 I just quickly found just in case. Consider and take appropriate action on request from the Texas association of counties to implement a public awareness program regarding unfunded mandates imposed on counties. 37 [indiscernible] which had nothing to do with 26. 26 seems to have picked up a little bit more steam and so I just included 27 just in case. Some other [indiscernible] press conferences. I think north Texas elected officials had one recently. And basically they are in opposition to the proposed caps and other aspects of the governor's proposal. What we did was to go to p.u.c. With some ideas that we had, and was that pretty much the posture that we see adopted?
>> the c.u.c. Policy -- sorry. They took the Travis County work of bob and chris and adopt our amendment related to our concerns and approach adding only one other area that we had not thought about and that is that also something that would be not included in the cap is any county that wanted to add to their reserves. That's not an issue for us because we already have a 11% unallocated, but they do want that to count against a lot of counties that unfortunately some of them are operating with only 30, 60 or 90 days worth of reserves. And so --
>> and they haven't had a meeting since then.
>> in addition, anything we need to get to today, bob? I guess we still have half the people saying special session real soon, the others saying I wouldn't bet on it. I guess that means nobody really knows except the governor.
>> I think you are correct, judge. And yesterday there was an article in the houston paper saying that the governor's real thing I'm not going to call this until there's some type of consensus. It's not a when of when, it's if there is a consensus. That seems to bounce around too. I don't tphoefplt I thought the last couple of weeks it was looking like a lot more like we were going to get a special session because we had been hearing dates, the 19th, the 16th of this month. But I think we just have to wait and see. But there's certainly and the legislature is over there working and the leadership diligently to find consensus and find a plan they can -- [indiscernible].
>> c.u.c. Is still planning to another another luncheon to talk about this presuming they start around the 19th or not she it's been moved to the 21st of April, which is a Wednesday. But I'm sure that's something that is movable if indeed it turns out we don't have a session happening. They did that as a planning date. Sp els there's a lost us headed to galveston for the c.u.c. Conference beginning may 5th, which is the next time the c.u.c. Folk will be gathered.
>> and we have a work session item posted on Thursday to allow us to consider other legislative matters. Anything else -- anything else you think that would help us to try to do?
>> judge, I think that the letter that was -- that christian circulated to y'all sheds new light at least on the attitude around the state towards this proposal. It's -- I think it has a little bit -- it's a different tone from the tone that you all adopt, which was a very cooperative tone of the governor and trying to look for solutions. And there's been an effort, of course the cities have joined together. There's been an effort to get the counties and cities to join together and all the county elected officials to join together and get to a councilman place. -- commonplace. So -- but I don't think that has really happened. I don't think there's consensus even among the counties or even among all the cities. So [inaudible] and I think discuss other proposals in that work session on Thursday. But a lot is -- I don't think a lot has changed since the last time we were before you. Other than there's probably a little more defined opposition to the governor's plan from some of the counties. I mean the cities came out clearly several weeks ago.
>> but I guess -- but you still don't have a firm reading, from what I'm hearing, for us to go [inaudible] as of today. Even though the letters from the other cities and counties in the state are opposing these -- what he's recommending, I guess my point is is there a barometer or anything you can read as far as where he stands at this point because it's getting kind of critical, coming up to the budget cycle and we're challenging issues this fiscal year, along with other counties, cities and everything else. Ust trying to get a position where we are [inaudible] any inkling at all.
>> we need information the governor's office released in the last day or so was that they are very close to releasing a plan. So -- with more detail. That's the latest that we have.
>> the latest and greatest. Okay.
>> school finance plan? So far the pressure issues really have been on taxes, taxpayer relief is what they've been kaeulg them.
>> again, my understanding from that press release yesterday that it dealt with school funding a and the broughter issue. But I think that the limitation on appraisal rates and communication on the ability to spend property tax revenue is part and parcel of that plan.
>> of that plan?
>> yes.
>> Travis County clerk. I just wanted to let the court know last Tuesday the Texas association of counties with all of the presidents in the association or designated representatives, the county district clerks association of Texas passed a resolution in support of county judges on Commissioner's association against revenue caps and appraisal caps. So at least that statewide organization is behind you. The other organizations at the table, auditors, treasurers, sheriffs, also indicated their associations will be following in suit as quickly as possible.
>> okay.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, dana.
>> anybody else here on this item? Please come forward.
>> I'm working on getting some members and that together and in a concise manner and I will get those to you. But I think that -- and the auditor's association is going to come forward, but I think one of the things as you sit back and look for people who are watching is there is already a cap on county taxes. They talk about put a cap on. There is a constitutional cap on the property tax and there are -- ad valorem, and then there are also caps on road and bridge and farm to market roads. So the notion that it was unrestrained is an incorrect one because there already is a cap on property taxes. The other thing is we're looking at a problem of school finance, and then counties are dragged in. Counties aren't broken. The concern that i've seen in the press releases expressed by the governor is that all of a sudden if the property taxes are reduced for schools, that counties will go insane and start raising their taxes and take that money. And there's really no indication that counties have behaved that way in the past. There seems like an unrealistic expectation. We spent a lot of money in this government complying with g. G.a.s.b.y. 34, and what we got from that was a government-wide financial statement that looks like that that the private sector puts out. It just got printed and I'm going to give you a condensed version. I think some of the salient points and we are talking and people are listening to those proposals and property tax relief is that for this government, 68% of the revenue government-wide comes from the ad valorem property tax. We don't have a lot of revenue sources. The only revenue sources we have are those that are approved by the legislature. The second category of revenue is fines and charges for services in that 16%. So the cap on property taxes is a very serious impact on the services that we render here. If other thing is that the legislature last time put together a committee, the financial data advisory committee, and I -- I don't know if it's fortunate or unfortunate, I'm the one that chaired that committee in the state of Texas and what they tried to do was put together a suggested list of functions, subfunctions stwargt the chart of accounts for counties so we could get some unified information throughout the county. Travis County has complied with that and I'm going to provide you a summary of what those spend yourself are consistent with what that statewide committee put together. Butly tell you that the largest -- there are two that are neck and neck and the largest categories is expenditures in this government and that is corrections and rehabilitation at basically 22%. No surprise there. And the second one is the justice system at basically 21%. For those of you who have passed budgets every year, that's not a surprise. But as we group them the way the state would like it becomes very apparent the predominant amount of expenditures that we have are in the category of mandates. And furthermore, there are areas in which we cannot control demand. In other words, a criminal court can't really say we're only he equipped for three capital murders this year. However many people come into our system, we need to deal with. We need to provide attorneys for them. We need to provide prosecutors. Jail cells, food, medical care if they are in our care for adults and juveniles. And so the past relief kind of implies that too much is going on here. And the reality is when you look at county government it's really bare bones operation, it is simple in many regards and it is a government that does mandate its services. I'm finally getting some really concise numbers and I want to talk to you more about that and give each of you a packet when people ask questions of you. I think from a business management viewpoint there is some really down sides to the proposal which might sound attractive on the face of it. Since justice is one of our biggest areas, I talked to several of the judges, and judge stenton just returned from a large judicial coverage and in one of the states that did put a cap on, let me read a little bit of this. He says, susan, I just got off the phone with the governor of oregon. The courts shut down their courts one day a week last year. He indicated it had several cons conveniences. Some were reset until after the end of the period which resulted in a major backlog. They decided not to appoint attorneys for certain crimes. Prosecutors dealt certain drug crimes out as fines only. The prosecutor greatly reduced offers to move the backlog. The supreme court set up review of all tort functions, murder, prapb tall rights, small claims and we had to died what would be covered. That's what happens when you put arbitrary caps on justice. The kind of impact from that is not really a savings in people's pockets, but some really serious implications in their short term. The other thing that I think as we're ought there talking is there is a cap of 4, 5, 6% a year, it will be almost pwaoepbt you to tax at that amount whether you need it or not because if the year comes and you don't have the money you don't get it. This year you actually came back off the effective tax rate. But you would be very afraid to do that if you had a cap that you could not exceed. You would almost have to take that cap so that you have money to operate these programs that we really can't control the demand on. So there are a lot of implications in these kinds of caps. And the truth is the inflation rate and the population rate is not dick -- does not dictate the activities of the kind of programs, many of the programs that we have to finance here. And we don't have a lot of flexibility mid-year when things go wrong. So I think that it's a really bad idea. I don't think it will serve -- save any money. I think it might save some short-term things. People will put off repairs, wait until you can finance where there is no cap, and I think that it will dramatically badly impact the mandatory programs that people depend on in county government. I think it's unfortunate because we have a school crisis, but we don't have a county crisis. I think that that plan will create one statewide. So I'm working to do what I can and I know you are. I think all of us need to that this is not a good plan for the people who live here. It is not a good, quote, savings.
>> susan, I mean ai agree with almost everything you said. We sat in kph z's office two weeks ago and in 15 minutes time identified -- Commissioner Sonleitner -- 8 or 10 things and said oh, and what about this. And what if this happens. That has been discussed. I mean I would like to -- I'm not going to stand up with the governor and say, you know, the concept of what you are trying to do is great. I mean let's face it, the state has an unbelievable amount of pressure to do something about the robin hood plan. But to shove it down, you know, the throats of the cities and the counties, I mean I will tell you that as an elected republican in precinct 3 in Travis County, I do not think that what we know about it now and what could happen to us is a sound thing for us to do. No. I wouldn't mind having that conversation with the governor face to face. I mean and -- but we seem to get in these positions where if we don't support something, I mean we're going to make somebody mad. I'm not trying to make everybody mad. I'm trying to run -- trying to be a good elected official. And there are things that we have got to do. I have certainly found in the year ahead that i've been here, but we had to spend money on things I thought -- I didn't even know you had to spend money on. And I think that that's the reason that there is the resistance. I don't think there would be any resistance at all if somebody were to say real what I they are trying to say which is we don't want to make the governor mad. I don't think anybody wants to make the governor mad, but I think we need to be forth right enough stand up and say this ant sound. There are too many things that we fear is going to happen to us and we already have rules and regulations, but we can't get crazy with our standards. So I mean -- I think it needs to be said although that may not make your job easier, I mean you are representing Travis County, and that's where I stand and maybe it takes Commissioner Daugherty saying out loud how he feels about that.
>> I concur with you. [inaudible] to be afraid to say what I said. But I don't think it's a good idea what's going on. No, it's not a good idea. I really feel that I think a lower -- I don't think the level [indiscernible] republican versus democratic issue, I think the through the other cities and counties through the state of Texas something was suggested that this is a bipartisan can look at it's going affect the county incentives. From there [indiscernible] what the government is trying to do, it is going to affect us, have [indiscernible] on unfunded mandates. We've got some challenges we're going to have to deal with coming up this budget cycle. I don't really know what's going to come out of the next two or three days that you showed the proceeds release. I don't know what you'll come out and tell. But if the county was bending that to whereby we are not aeubgtd capture the revenue we need to operate on and those things we are mandated to do. Then of course we better be left before the shortfall. That means we'll have to do some things. I just hope whatever comes through dealing with the robin hood, the school taxing issues across the state of Texas, I would hope that we can straight those two things out of there.
>> thank you. Thank you.
>> and that's the [indiscernible] there. I don't think it's stepping on anybody's toes, but the deal is we've got to do what's best for the taxpayers of Travis County. That's who I represent. And so I would like to expand on that.
>> one point about the governor's plan when it came out is that there wasn't that much detail. The one thing that was in there that I think sends a signal to what the governor wants he was in favor of sound prohibition or sound language for -- against unfunded mandates. So I think we keep throwing an objective out there, here's a [indiscernible], but I think -- my impression of the governor's office, they want to consider what you all have to say. And I think that the -- that the approach you took a week ago was exactly that. We agreed with you on your goal here. But we want to look at how this actually works and work wit. So I do think what you are saying is inconsistent in terms of what you are saying and what we'll try to do in getting that out there.
>> we're going to have to start picking up the pace on this related to the dialogue. And it almost seems like we were trying to play good cop and others are trying to play bad cop, but we're trying to get to the same place in terms of making some points. When the state of Texas affirmatively starts making cuts that impact county budgets right now, it would take later discretion by the county to say we disagree with you, that you are making -- on child protective services and we choose to substitute local dollars so that we don't hold kids hostage in this community. It says that we choose to disagree on you on the number of hours you set aside for visiting judges in a county because we know that it will have a severe impact on dockets and jail overcrowding. To substitute in local dallas for a decision made at the state level. The same thing on drug courts. They cut funding at the state for drug courses. But to this county's credit and the city of Austin's I didn't "-credit, they put in dollars to replace a program that is working to keep people out of the jails. The other thing that we are now discovering on visiting our social service agencies, there are gut-wrenching cuts that are coming down through crime victims plants and grants that are coming out of the attorney general rs office, affecting social service agencies you, but also within our own government reeled to crime victims rs dollars that are used for victims counselors or at the sheriff's office. If they take away those cuts, it takes away our ability to substitute back in. It seems they are saying you are already rise sized and you shouldn't have to make to 'objectives. When we try to pump up the number of sheriff's deputies on the street, that's something it's taken us nine years and we're still not there in terms of goals we have to put more officers on the street. With the technology that they need. We got an incredibly thoughtful report from our criminal judges and county clerk at law and we are following behind in terms of needing to add more could you tell us. Those are a million bucks each. And so [indiscernible] revenue caps, you almost have to go to the max so that you can save up that two or three years down the line you can finally afford a criminal court. This county has taken a very good stand of using cash and not credit to pay for a lot of capital items. The car account. It used to not be that way, and Commissioners before me got that started in a very modest way and built it up. But I would hate to see that that we would stop use being cash for a capital and put more pressure on [indiscernible]. The county is proud of the fact we have 11% reservess. I would hate to see pressure to free up ongoing money that we lower the percentage that this city sets aside for reserves. That's something that could impact our bond rating. It would also ignore the results of bond elections. Can you see it, that we can build parks, but we can't get the operating funds to put the people in place to run them. There are things that [indiscernible] in terms of the maintenance and up keep and personnel. And the other thing, and I hope this really does catch the governor's attention, is that they are trying to put together partnerships on the state and local level. Sh 130 being front and center. Can you imagine if we had revenue caps? Do you think that this county would have thought seriously about whether we put $90 million, the single largest bond election ever passed in the history of Travis County for a single item in terms of scooping up our dollars for something that is not even county-owned project. I think it puts into jeopardy the partnerships that the state wants to cultivate with cities and counties to joint fund some of the very major state highway projects under 3588. We've already done one. Can you imagine sh 130 happening in the light of caps? I certainly don't see tonight terms of they are going to see I'm sorry, you can't spend any money. There's my rant.
>> well, do we want to take another look at a letter basically setting forth our response between now and next Tuesday? That's to the court. So this item would be back on. Have this on the work session agenda for Thursday for discussion. I suggest we discuss it further on Thursday and with an eye toward having yet maybe if we want to take specific action another written response to look at next Tuesday. How's that?
>> is it also helpful we're talking about beginning a dialogue with our local delegation. Because we have three republicans who sit on our state representative delegation. And I think those folks are critical in finding out where are their heads at related to whether they, you know, where are they related to the proposals that are out there and whether their opinion is the same, openminded, or different from what the governor has laid out there within the challenges. I think we need to get a temperature reading on our own delegation.
>> it's the former of what you said and we'll talk to the other two before Thursday.
>> I think whatever you put together we ought to see. I think we [indiscernible] ask for their support. I would think that -- I mean some of this, you know, regardless of party affiliation, has to make sense t question is what can we expect them to do? And so I mean I would ask for specific action and then if they can't do that, ask them what they think they can do. The other thing is there is some fear that transportation dollars may be jeopardized. I was at a meeting yesterday of a new group that I was going to share that with the court on Thursday, we'll put something in writing also. There could be a whole lot of stuff looked at in a special session, and the feeling from yesterday was that you have to make your position known, otherwise others may be left with the impression that you really don't care about it. Transportation for most urban areas has been like the number 1 and 2 issue the last five years or so. And if you look at state projects, typically the state asks us for a local contribution. I don't see that going away. And the other thing about what I have seen is there is protection for existing debt. But it doesn't say anything about future debt, whether it's voter approved or not. So I mean I think there are some issues we need to share with all of our delegation members and [indiscernible] specific action and be left up to them what they want to do. The other thing is if we put that together, I think we need to share it with the Travis County taxpayers so they will know what we're suggesting and the reasons why. Anything further today?
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 6, 2004 9:31 AM