Travis County Commssioners Court
June 22, 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.
Item 34
34. Consider and take appropriate action on request for Commissioners court to set a parcel rate for tax year 2004. Dusty knight.
>> I’m dust community '98 with -- dusty knight with the Travis County tax office. We look at the costs associated with the collection of property taxes for all of the jurisdictions in Travis County. This year we calculated the rate, if things were status quo, $1.35 per parcel, which is an increase over last year's calculated rate of $1.24. Last year, if you remember, we calculated $1.24, but because this was the rising cost of other jurisdictions you set the rate at $1.04. In keeping what we are trying to do to not make all of the jumps all at wowpses for the tax -- at once for the taxing jurisdictions we have talked with p.b.o., Going over all of the numbers, we would call between 1.04, $1.34, splitting the difference, suggest that you too look at $1.20 per parcel if things are all status quo. The problem that we have that nobody has been able to determine just yet for us is there also going to be the hospital district. If you have the hospital district involved this adds about 340 parcels, it would take those same costs, drop the costs down to 99 crentses. And if we are -- cents. If we are going to go with the hospital district collecting for them this year, we would recommend to go with the 99 cents for all of the taxing jurisdictions. That would be the two options that I would for you all today. Are there any questions?
>> I have one other.
>> okay. If we did the 99, are we one pun% fully recovering the costs of doing this.
>> if we go at 99 cents that would do fully the 1.2 million. If we do the $1.20 and didn't have the hospital district we would be collecting about 150,000 less than what we are actually doing if we don't include the hospital district. Did I say that right? Fully collecting everything at 99 cents with the hospital district.
>> okay. If we have a calculated cost of $1.35, only do $1.20 without the hospital district we are not collecting it all.
>> the 99 would cover us. Now, related to decisions that need to be made because obviously our friends on the hospital district have not been pulled together, what assurances do we have that said board of managers at whatever point they decided to get together will indeed go with Travis County to do this? Is that one of those things that Travis County can insist that they --
>> I would think so.
>> question to be asked. Because if we set the rate at 99, we have to do so with a pretty good assurance that the hospital district parcels are in, in which case all good things happen. Ah jim collins. All cost are less for everybody. Hi, jim. The question is what assurances do we have that indeed that the parcels related to the hospital district billing legitimately ought to be figured into the equation and we can have assurances that that will indeed happen.
>> you can't have 100% assurance. I’m probably one of the most commonly saying please don't assume that the hospital district board is going to do what people think they're going to do. However, I have informed nelda that I think that it is a much better than 99% chance that the hospital district will contract with nelda to collect their taxes. I do not see that there is any other option for the hospital district other than to do that. The notion that the hospital district either would or would want to establish their own tax collection department, which is their other alternative I think it's virtually zero chance. Can't give you 100% guarantee, but I can't imagine possibly that the hospital district would do it.
>> that sounds good to me. I wanted to have reasonable assurances here that [multiple voices]
>> we have already prepared the contract Travis County and the hospital district for tax collection services.
>> fortunately it's a form contract. Dusty, just to make sure, really, quite frankly the hospital district coming on line is going to help out everybody else because they were looking forward to the idea that we were still at a cost recovery mode related to the parcel rate. And this really is going to help spread out the costs. In fact lower those costs and not raise them. Have we fully put in what our presumed numbers are, approved by the Commissioners court related to health insurance?
>> yes. The increase that we -- the basic increase from $1.24 to $1.35 that we have this year included both the costs that I was given per f.t.e. For health insurance and a potential cost of living, peak performance, whatever you might have.
>> you are an old timer if you talk a about peek. That's been a long time ago, performance based pay. The recommendation from ms. Spears is to set it at 99 cents.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> that would be my motion.
>> second.
>> moved and seconded the parcel rate be set at 99. We look forward to this item coming to the Commissioners court related to signing with the hospital district. Moved and seconded. All in favor? That passes unanimously.
Last Modified: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 8:44 AM