Travis County Commissioners Court
November 16, 2004
Item 25
View captioned video, morning discussion.
View captioned video, afternoon discussion.
Text of afternoon discussion.
Number 25 is to consider and take appropriate action on Travis County legislative agenda for upcoming legislative session. And 26 is to consider and take appropriate action on legislation to authorize an additional criminal district court in Travis County.
>> good morning. Fine, how are you doing?
>> what we hope to do today is give the legislative consultant some idea of specific legitimate I have initiatives that they can start working on between now and the end of the year in preparation for the upcoming legislative session. All right.
>> that is correct, judge. Good morning, judge and members of the court.
>> good morning.
>> the handout I have just given you, if you will look at page 2, and I have three pages here. And this is a condensed version of what you considered last month.
>> interrupt you. It seems to me this will be our last agenda item this morning. So if you have business with Travis County today, then we will reconvene this afternoon at 1:30. So we know for a fact it would not be before 1:30 we get to you, other than these two items we just called up. Thank you.
>> sure. And the question to the court is do you want to consider this as a package or do you want me to go through each one separately and vote on those individually or what is your preference?
>> I think we need to walk through them individually. A quick walk.
>> sure.
>> and get input from us, and maybe if there's opposition we'll indicate that after our questions that we need to ask to clarify and at the end take one motion.
>> okay. On page number 2, the very first issue there, county hotel occupancy tax which was brought by Commissioner Davis. We do have a meeting scheduled tomorrow with the hotel and convention association, the state hotel and convention association and the Austin hotel association to discuss this issue further. And so I知 not sure what Commissioner Davis' preference is at this point on that.
>> why don't you just basically go ahead and let's move forward with this. I have not had any opposition at all from the hotel-motel folks. Just as far as tourism efforts on this. But there has not been any indication at all to show any opposition to what we're dealing with now. I would like to go ahead and go forward with this particular concept and so that is the direction I知 going in.
>> as part of our background information, have we ascertained what other Texas counties have this tax in place that Travis County residents are required to pay when we visit their counties?
>> right.
>> I would think that would be good information to have.
>> yeah, and we provided that information last month. Right now Travis County -- the city and Travis County are at 15%. And harris county is at 17%. 17% is the highest in the country. This bill would raise Travis County 2% so we would be at 17%. So we would be in the same shoes as harris county.
>> what other counties are at 17%?
>> I believe harris is the only one in the nation. In the state and in the nation.
>> I guess I didn't necessarily want the information today, but it seems to me some analysis needs to be done and we need to see what the facts are. We need to see whether we're looking to be as reasonable as I知 thinking. And if I pay a similar tax when I go to another county, I have a hard time understanding why we will ask their residents to pay the same when they come here. They may well be facts that justify the additional burden on me when I go there rather than a similar burden on their residents when we come here. I guess I知 asking, I know we talked about this a year and a half, two years ago, but the factual background I guess is what we need to put together, update and at some point take a look at before actually deciding. But in terms of this being on our list of things to do, as far as I know we want it left there.
>> I do.
>> I definitely do.
>> I appreciate Commissioner Davis bringing this to our attention because every time I go to other jurisdictions for our county judges and Commissioners there is a county tax. It is modest. Some places it's only 50 cents a night. But it is something as opposed to nothing. And we are not capturing what I think ought to be coming to this county related to things like the republic of Texas event which all of our soccer tournaments, we don't make any money. Those are losing operations.
>> and I think the meeting tomorrow will provide a lot more information for the court because the Texas hotel and lodging association said their support or opposition would be contingent on whether or not the bill -- the projects that this would support would actually put more people into hotels. They said if it just fills the restaurants, that doesn't help them, but if they are the type of project that would in fact increase lodging in the hoe test, then that would be a win-win deal and they would be interested in discussing it and looking at it and possibly supporting it. So we'll find out a lot more tomorrow.
>> basically want a little more detail --
>> they wanted more detail on the projects.
>> that's what we're going to present to them tomorrow. Again, as I stated, I have not heard any opposition from those folks that ought to say no, dah, dah. As far as more detail and how can we accommodate and facilitate tourism.
>> that's correct. They said they would be happy to look at it and if it would be something you all could work with.
>> do they think their support the critical to the session?
>> absolutely. Yes.
>> is this a -- let me make sure that I understand. This will be a tax, an additional 2% on all of the hotel space in Travis County, not just in hotels that are in unincorporated areas.
>> that's correct.
>> this will be for the whole city.
>> that's correct. I mean I know you will find out tomorrow about the state folks, but the last time I remember somebody weighing in on this from the acvb part of Austin, unless they changed their mind, and I would imagine that they will have some weigh in on this, but let's just wait and see.
>> okay.
>> [inaudible] authorizes [inaudible] for tax in other cities tore Travis County residents is this.
>> I was hoping we could drop it by 2%.
>> that's a little Commissioners court humor there, bob.
>> we'll draft an amendment.
>> thank you.
>> all right. So we're going to hold that one until after tomorrow's meeting --
>> 3w#b+:pt forward with it, bu-
>> all right.
>> additional information will have to be brought, but we're going to move forward with this.
>> you want to move on to 2 or are you going to vote as we -- okay. The second issue, also brought by Commissioner Davis, deals with reimbursements to the hospital district for health services provided to residents of other counties. And we're currently working with a group of other counties from around the state. There isn't a concrete proposal to bring you right now, but we'll continue to work with Commissioner Davis' office and the c.u.c. And other offices to do that.
>> council of human services executive manager, ms. Fleming, have been also attending -- in fact, they attended the last meeting held with the c.u.c. Looking at the same issue. And of course I haven't got a full report from her on that particular meeting. And the date that that meeting was held was the same day that you had -- attended a work session at Travis County so you were not able to be there either.
>> that's correct.
>> but since that's the case, it would be good to hear if we do have different information of what happened before the c.u.c. Of other urban counties looking at the same concern as far as having those particular persons that use their district, hospital district services but do not live within the boundaries of that hospital district.
>> and I think we have a report.
>> thank you.
>> pass it down.
>> thank you. Thank you.
>> sharon fleming, executive manager for health and human services. Judge, Commissioners, what I知 circulating to you is a copy of the information that was shared at the meeting that Commissioner Davis just referenced. And I agree that there is not a specific course of action from that group, but clearly many of the counties and hospital districts that were represented at that meeting have similar concerns that have been voiced by this court in terms of compensation related to persons from other counties or other district areas accessing hospital services and those districts or counties not being compensated for that care. The handout that you have, the top sheet is basically a proposal that discusses some potential options that might go forward in how to rectify this issue related to indigent health care. One suggestion might be actually --
>> any objection to this being on our list of bills to pursue? Sorry to cut you off. Now, here's the other thing. I do know that the board of managers of the hospital district are sort of moving in this direction on something so we need to collaborate with them. Otherwise this should be on our list of things --
>> [inaudible] was also in that meeting also, judge, the --
>> that's correct, he was.
>> [indiscernible] to provide additional input. The court weigh in as well as the board of managers of hospital district. This is one of our critical pieces.
>> yes, sir.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, ms. Fleming.
>> you are welcome.
>> number 3.
>> number 3. This issue makes the distinction between technical parole violators and those with pending criminal allegations. And under current law regardless of what type of allegation it is, the state has 40 days to prosecute these. And the proposal here would be for technical parole violators to reduce that time period to 10 days rather than the 40. But it would retain the current law for those parole violators with pending criminal allegations.
>> do you think we can get c.u.a. And t.a.c. Support on this? We'll need it, won't we?
>> probably so.
>> any objection to this being on our list.
>> no, judge, and we have a c.u.c. Meeting on Thursday. I haven't seen the agenda, but there's no time like the present to bring some of these things up.
>> yeah, and we can also bring it to the next -- their legislative affairs -- legislative committee meeting.
>> do we ask for specific reduction, but I guess during the session we take whatever we can get.
>> yes, sir.
>> I guess whether we like it or not, that will be the position we will be in once we get over there.
>> well, and I think if it's not 10 days, if it's 15 days or 20 days or 25 days, that's money saved because those are fewer days that you won'ting paying for the technical parole violators to be in the county jail. So anything in that direction is going to benefit the counties.
>> okay. Any objection? Number 4.
>> the next one is -- would be a bill that would just require the state to reimburse the counties for those days that parole violators are in the county jail. This is one, there was a bill several years -- several sessions ago, I don't know if it was last session or s-gs before, when you testified before the senate finance committee, judge, and we had a fiscal note of $43 million, something in that ballpark. Could take care of that. Because essentially you are saying the state is going to step up and pay for those. That's pretty tough deal right now.
>> we ought to keep trying. If we don't keep trying, they think we don't have to pay attention to the judge anymore.
>> and I don't want you necessarily to vote depending on how handicapped this is, they are all going to be cut especially with the school finance issue because there might not be enough time this the session to pass this bill.
>> but we take 4 makes sense?
>> well, I think there's a difference of opinion from other members from c.u.c. They are saying that part of this is arguably a function of the county jail is to hold those for the state. But that's just a difference of pen and so I don't know if we have across the board support from other counties on this one.
>> obviously they have space in their jails.
>> let's leave it alone.
>> number 5 is compensation tore county detainment of technical parole violators. Oh, I知 sorry. That's the -- number 5 is the one that we just discussed. Okay. Number 4 says that the state would -- instead of putting them in the county jail, if there is a state jail available, then they would put them in the state jail pending the revocation hearing. And therefore the same effect, the state -- where there are state jail facilities available with open spaces, would take those and they wouldn't end up in county jail. We proposed this to the state in those meetings two or three years ago and they rejected it at that time so I don't think we would have support for this. Not the say it's not a good idea and you shouldn't do it, but it's going to be an uphill battle on this one.
>> okay.
>> that was number 4. We'll go on to page 3 and issue number 6. Fee for nonpayment of fines and court costs. This is a result of some legislation passed last session that added a $25 fine for those that are in jail. And what has happened is that many of those captain pay the extra $25 -- can't pay the extra $25 so they are required to stay in jail an extra day to take care of that fine. And as a result, not only does the county not get the $25, but you spend an extra 40 or $45 to have that person in jail an additional day. So this one is suggesting a solution where you wouldn't have to impose that $25 fee in these types of cases. And so they would not be in jail an additional day and you will have those savings.
>> okay.
>> even if they paid the 25 bucks, we're still a net loss of 15 bucks.
>> that's right.
>> but it's better than a net loss of 70.
>> b. Is the choice.
>> and going on -- issue number 7, calculation of credit for time served, and this proposal would require the defendant, it would -- to make any appeal regarding the credit time to be done within 10 business days of -- I believe it was the entry of the judgment. So it's trying to -- apparently these can come up, pop up six months, 12 months later, and they are trying to put some type of finite period on to appeal those.
>> okay. Why don't we do this. We do have several judges and I told them we would try to pull their item up at 11:30. But what if we talk about the courts. This will be what we want to do anyway so you will be part of this also. But we had a work session during which we had various strategies and various numbers of courts mentioned. We did call up 26 which deals with the criminal district court. During our work session we talked about the need for a county court as well as a domestic violence court, so we kind of talked about three. And so why don't we just discuss the courts now. That way unless the judges want to just stay around and hear the rest of the discussion after that item --
>> [inaudible] 12:30, judge.
>> [inaudible] represent the criminal district.
>> okay. All right.
>> this is elizabeth's day, isn't it? Thank you, barbara.
>> she really likes that, you know. She decided she wants to stay home and look like she hasn't aged in 20 years. She's never leaving the house.
>> I think I知 here in deference to the e-mail saying be here.
>> why don't we start with the criminal district court.
>> okay. When I was off on my sick leave, I heard the preparation and you had a couple of questions that I thought I would just try to address that. You've had two work sessions that gave you a lot of data on case, but I would like to talk today real bye the implication of those numbers taken need for another criminal district court. One of the reasons if courts are so controversial because they are very large packages. And it's hard to add a package that costs $1.6 million. If someone asked for a couple of deputies or financial analyst, you are talking about small amounts of money. But the addition of the court is the entire package that goes with it. So it is expensive. By the same token, the justice system is one of the -- the major expenditures and responsibilities of county government. And the -- most of the cases are not generated by Travis County. As a matter of fact, in the handout I gave you, 87% of the volume coming into our justice system is generate by the city of Austin. So they pay for that part of it and then it comes to us and we have to take care of -- we being all of the taxpayers in Travis County including those that live in the city of Austin where the justice system action prosecution, indigent defense, all of the things that make a court system. Judge, you asked a question of what is the ideal caseload for a judge to handle. And I think that there is not a perfect answer, but I think one thing that is certain is that we ought to be disposing of more cases than come in. Because if we don't, then you have a backlog. That backlog just keeps getting bigger and bigger and you never get on top of it. In f.y., That's equivalent to a full caseload for a court. So we are catching up court backlog every year. And what happens then. The cases are just slower and slower to be handled. And probably the most serious situation is the time in which it takes a case to be disposed. When we talk about justice, we're not just talking about efficiency but justice and that is the right thing is done for all the people involved. I gave you some more date tarbgs but by -- data, but by any standard you look at the time it takes to reach a jury trial in Travis County is just plain too long. The cases set for jury trial now, the average median they have been is 311 days. And that's just the median. That's just plain too long. It's a year. But this page right here are the cases that exceed that. And there are cases that have been waiting 900, 700, 800, 600, 500 days. And that kind of a lag is not right to the defendants whether they are innocent or guilty, it's not right to the victims, and these are our most serious cases. And there just needs to be more movement of taking care of these cases in a more timely manner. So I don't think there's any question that the data supports the addition of another criminal district court. I think the truth is that if we were talking about the dispositions at the rate that probably would be desirable, there's a need for more than one. But we would like to go forward with this legislative session with your approval to get another criminal district court approved. And would like to discuss if you support that what late you would like a court like that -- we would suggest in the legislation that the court be put into effect. This is not the adoption of a budget for that court. That needs to be discussed. There's lots of details to that and discussion to be taken place. The legislature has to approve the district court, you need to approve the district court and sometimes it doesn't happen in kwupb session. The problem that's happened in the past is we've waited too long. By the time we get to court, we have some horrible backlogs. I personally from looking at the data think we have a pretty nasty backlog now. But it's something we need to address. It's one of the major tphupgs of county government.
>> during the legislative session I guess we think any time the legislature comes to town inclined to create the authorization of new district courts.
>> that's right.
>> I guess we would go over with a local bill, they call it. If other counties ask for the legislation, the legislature is a lot more likely to do it if they can address the needs of several counties in one session rather than just Travis County. So part of our strategy would be to figure out as soon as possible what's the -- what the legislature is inclined to do.
>> right. And add to that, though, if we need to or if there is an omnibus bill, and usually there is, to go forward on our own, at least to get the issue out there, the problem when we wait until there is a crisis, it takes to long to get a court and you can't react quickly because the legislature has to approve it. I think our strategy ought to be work really hard this session to get one passed. If not, work real hard in the one after. To get the court.
>> there's no liability for creating it. I mean if you just legislative get it done, you are not saying that, okay, if this passes, then within 365 days Travis County, you have got to fund this thing. I mean I would suppose there's something that the legislators would go --
>> I think there is, Commissioner. We put -- April just drafted a couple of draft pieces of legislation here and you all need to fill in whatever date just to keep things moving. But you can see there what a bill would like like for a stkeufblgt district court. And there is an effective date on that. There are a number of courts being asked for the district judges understand you may have to ladder the courts in. Whatever you decide whether it's one or two or three, you might not be able to bring them in all at once. Their request would be that the district court would be the first one in terms of dates because of the seriousness of those -- of those cases.
>> if you have a date, I guess when the legislature passes a bill into law, that means they will fund the district court judges' salary effective that day. So they would expect counties to pony up.
>> that's right.
>> so you are I mean in essence if you are going to promote the passage of this thing, then the court -- the court has technically planned that we're going to spend $1.6 million.
>> what we've also seen is the legislature has more of a tendency to stick tonight the second half of the biennium because that's one more year they don't have to pony up the 100,000 for the judge. They have not been ones willing to put them in at the beginning, they are putting them in at the end.
>> and the date could be changed.
>> it's really whatever the governor chooses the announcement date will be.
>> the other footnote at within year we got the -- we could let the election occur rather than --
>> and that's kind of what we -- yeah.
>> it was vetoed at that time by the governor. So every time though that the legislature has passed it and the government has had an opportunity to appoint a district judge, looks like the governor has signed it. Especially in recent history. This is during the last 10 years, hadn't it?
>> yes.
>> and we put -- for the district January 1, 2006. Obviously we can put any date you all wanted in there and they might change it anyway no matter what we would put in.
>> we're trying to kick it into the next fiscal year because obviously this is --
>> on the county courts and domestic violence courts, can I share a thought that has come to me or discussions. There's another little piece also. What about the strategy of creating another county court that has the authority to handle domestic violence cases also?
>> all courts right now have the authority to hear those cases. [inaudible] legislation that -- [inaudible]. Is this is a general jurisdiction but we'll give preference to domestic violence cases. And that pushes those up to the front of the docket to make them go faster. Certainly we're all general injures additions courts and both supblges have volunteered in the pat to say hey, i'll take a case. We would always be there.
>> that would be important to me. I think the other thing is folks who have issues with meant health.
>> whereas when you rule I think about that, I think there's a whole lot we ought to do in mental health. Judge herman has visited with me at least three or four times recently. It seems to me we need to do a better job, I知 not sure we need to do a better job totally in the criminal justice system.
>> right.
>> plus, I think we need some other partners.
>> no doubt.
>> we have done some studying, there have been some focus groups and I think they've come forth with good recommendations -fpblgt every time we get -- it seems to me though if you try to attack mental health from a civil perspective, plus if you've got case managers in place, then we can do a better job of hamming the criminal cases. And if judge herman is right, and I have no prone to dispute him, a whole lot of these crimes have low-level defenses. If we stabilize them and help them get on the right track, they get out of our criminal justice system hopefully forever. For others they still need some kind of mental health advantages to process the case appropriately. What I知 sort of thinking that aside from the one county court, that we would intend to handle regular court races and domestic violence. We work on a different strapbls to work the mental health eurs. I know when you looked at the see pwraoeu teu center, a lot of them had mental health issues. And we backed off of that. I knew at least Travis County mhmr, city of Austin, some p.m. People have been discussing -- steve williams was real active in that before he went to houston and our former justice department folk. What I知 suggesting is aside from creation of courts, we basically put together a strategy realizing a part of that will impact the criminal just continue system. But I知 thinking the way he really get in -- the buy-in from potential sources and maybe even access state mental health dollars especially from medication is really to put together a strategy that starts out building on the civil side -- see, when they are getting our criminal justice system think think whole world regards it as being our problem. Similarly they are society's problem. So I知 suggest we get a bit more comprehensive trying to deal with the simple side worse realizing those who become a part of the justice system will be ours wholly. And I would think we have other partners.
>> I skwreu judge ert and I were in a -- judge efrl discussing this sobriety issue and I think perhaps that needs to be resurrected so we can consider those issues. They are really impacting the population of the jail. And so clearly I don't believe that they belong in our jail. They need to do something else. And I think maybe the time has come for that sobriety center to be resurrected and I think we can do it, judge. We had really good discussion except the timing was not right on that issue. But I think the time is right. And I would really feel comfortable in approaching -- I知 glad to hear that all the county courts at law are general durst skwreubgs to we can tkrael all of the different population and not leave our populations out which need addressing.
>> I知 already there in terms of we need another county court of law?
>> yes. I think we ought to maintain the flexibility for that that court of law phaoedz. I've always talked about putting judge dietz out of business. But we need to have the flexibility whether it's needed to handle the domestic violence violence or it becomes something of an issue of member health. But we need that eighth court. It's in the a question of if but when so I知 already there are. I skwraoeubg this khapg that's being suggested here is that the courts have not only the try to to fit in the court rooms, but in a correctional facility because we do have space located within and I think that's just a cleanup measure for me. I知 already there in terms of that we made the extra county court of court's law. And I can tell you they weren't really interested in what are you using it forks, one question was Commissioner, is your court aware of 1% -- I mean move approval. It was like that. There are a lot of good discussions we should and can have a case management. The question is do we need another court? Yeah, I知 there.
>> what I wanted to add is the flexibility we have now. The legislation that created 4, as I said, it's the general jurisdiction court that gives me orts to domestic violence. When the docket works out such that all of a sudden there's not a case today, I know the judges will tell you as wells the simple cases, I hear a simple case or other criminal cases and actually we have a good back and forth on. That by saying it's a general jurisdiction court that tkeufs gives priority to domestic violence, what it does give is a priority of training not just for the judge but for everybody else because these issues are different. And in fact right now in response to, judge, when you were talking about -- I know the Austin police department has gone to ask for special funding to put up essentially a domestic violence center where they have views not officers, victim applicants and legal aid and all of that and they also look forward to if we had two courts and have the time to have a judge who would some days a week go to that location and sit in that location as well as here to help move cases foster. And I think that the designation that they do give priority to domestic violence would ensure all those partners in the domestic violence community come together to support that court as well. That's why I知 asking for your consideration of a court that does give priority to domestic violence. But that certainly has the flexibility to -- if the jury trial didn't go yesterday, I would e-mail the judges.
>> the same thing on the other side. I have a jury docket tomorrow that has family violence cases on there on the jury docket because there's other cases that may have been filed a person is being held on. So as of now, the county courts have jurisdiction to handle any violence cases that we handle daily every single day. And so that does hafplt I know that question was asked earlier and I just wanted to make sure that --
>> I would like to address judge Biscoe's concern about mental health issues. I have been working on the city's task force and we met yesterday afternoon and we're coming up with a report that has a list of priority, and several are criminal justice or justice related bee orts. We've got a working group now with pretty much the same members from the criminal justice subcommittee of that task force working something along with mr. Tr. Mr. Tremble and I think we're going to have sewage success. Think the hospital district will make a difference in the long run. The san antonio program that every favors, the hospital district plays a huge role in that. They fund the medication. And so, you know, there are so many people that are interested and a lot of people that are not going to just let this issue slide. So I think you can be assured we are going to look for ways to divert people from the criminal justice system and we're going to be asking for your help with that. But we don't know right now the best way for Travis County to go about doing it, but we are working to build that consensus and so hopefully we can come back to you in the next few months with some ideas.
>> okay.
>> but part of my strategy is not wait another few months. It's basically get in there and -- get to be a little bit more engaged than we've been so far.
>> well, we are making changes now.
>> this issue has been studied three, four, five years. Now, and now -- not that good recommendations haven't come, theuf not come with money to implement them. I知 not a knocking the effort on the way. It seems to me there are major players who possess expertise and there are other players who have resources. If you are talking about a substantial investment of money in our community, then if you've got four or five partners, that's a whole lot better than Travis County trying to do it.
>> right. And I think part reason that we may be more successful is because there's a nationwide movement aopb that has created, I think, more grants and more federal funding than there may have been historically. Sort of in the same fashion of domestic violence. As the issue came to the forth forefront, dollars from foundations and federal-type grants were created that didn't exist before. And I think we're seeing some of those in the mental health arena. So I知 really hopeful that we can, you know, take advantage of some of those opportunities.
>> just to kind of add to that, one of the things that the jail subcommittee is mental health is working on is really kind of bringing a better partnership with some of those other resources, especially working with the mhmr agency here. And I think that's one of the things we're really looking at is what you brought up, judge, there has been a lot of study done, there are some great ideas out there as far as how to address the issues, but the issue is where is the funding, how do we make these things actually work. And I think we've realized it really takes a good partnership, not just the criminal justice system, the judges and officials and deaths, but also some of the folks in the mhmr side. For example, we'll be talking with the state agency about whether additional resources are there. So I think we're working on some of those issues. But I think the idea is get a plan we just don't identify what the solutions are but what are some funding options that can make these things work.
>> and if we think that a lot of these mental health offenders should not be in our criminal justice system, I think our strategy ought to be to stop them before they get there. And the ones that end up there we know ought to be there because either of the nature of their crimes or because case manager has said we worked with this person on the civil side, not seeing good results, and it's time now to go and prosecutor some of the criminal cases.
>> that's right.
>> but -- and you know I guess i've heard enough good ideas mentioned that I知 sort of convinced that at some point we have to say now we have our share of the money, where's yours. If this is such a good idea and the task force did recommend it, we're a partner where's yours, here's ours. If you are talking three, four, five players it's better than one or two. It's a big societal problem. It's not just a criminal justice problem you all have convinced me.
>> oh, I believe it's not just a criminal justice problem. It's just that we're ending up with the problems. Favorable discussion that i've had with them.
>> it's a two-part motion I have in mind before we lose two members of the court. One is we put legislation authorizing creation of a criminal district court. Two, that we support the legislation authorizing creation of another county court with the flexibility to handle I guess regular county court criminal cases, domestic relations and domestic violence to the extent necessary the few mental health cases that will be left. Three, that we really get serious about implementation of a mental health facility and strapbl with the necessary partnering and financial support. And four, that's not posted but I知 sure is in the spirit of the motion, we get with the other partners and try to identify any and all local, state and national funding available to assist not only with domestic relations but also mental health to reduce the number of cases in our criminal justice system and deal with them on the front end. That's what I知 hearing, right?
>> right.
>> second the motion. Any discussion?
>> one comment and that was a comment made earlier by the judge and that is the -- bexar county, I guess the hospital district there looking at the medication needs and as far as the hospital district there taking care of some of the expense of those medical concerns. I just basically needed to know at what stage of the hospital district, if anyone knows, were they able to address the medication needs of the mental health persons that they have to deal with?
>> I don't know how long their hospital district has been in existence. But certainly much longer than ours. [multiple voices]
>> a very long time.
>> that would be 49 years. [laughter]
>> in terms of when they started making this partnership, some of their programs are very recent. And so we're looking at what their experiences were.
>> I was kind of concerned about that so if the hospital district could pick up some of those expenses in the future it would be something.
>> that's one of the things we're starting to look at, Commissioner, is, you know, as judge mentioned about the bexar county model, we're trying to loot how the partnerships were formed, some of the history so we can learn from that and see how we can build on that and hopefully it's going to be an opportunity soon.
>> thank you.
>> should I put the district 2006 and the county court at law 2007? Staggered in two different fiscal years.
>> that sounds find to me if it's agreeable. We will reserve flexibility to change dates based on response from the legislature.
>> absolutely.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you all.
>> come back with it this afternoon. If we could say -- if you get here at 1:40, it would be good.
>> 1:40.
>> we'll start back with this item and finish it. Appreciate your understanding. Recess to 1:30.
this morning we were working our way through a list of legislative items.
In item no. 25. We took a little action on a couple of items in 25 and 26.
25. Consider and take appropriate action on Travis County legislative agenda
for upcoming legislative session. And we had gotten to item no. 6 or through
it? No, we had gotten to 7, hadn't we?
>> I think we got through 7.
>> okay.
>> am I correct that the court has endorsed those first seven?
>> well, we didn't take action on them basically. We didn't
hear any significant objections to my recollection.
>> okay.
>> if you look at number 8, right now someone is in the work
release program, you are able to bill them for their time there. But for whatever
reason you can't, if they are in the weekender program. This -- this would
correct that situation so you could now begin to charge those that are participating
in the weekender program.
>> [indiscernible]
>> [indiscernible] yesterday.
>> these are folks that are out anyway, doing their service
on the weekend, you presume that they have jobs or positions on football teams
and have the ability to come up with this dollar.
>> I would mention, also, that we are having to staff the
weekender program with overtime. So ...
>> uh-huh.
>> it's more costly.
>> shall we move on to number 9?
>> uh-huh.
>> reimbursement for confinement expenses, this also came
from the sheriff's office. And this also relates to someone in the work release
or weekender program. Right now as the background states, there's for penalties
for enforcement of that. And this bill, suggested bill, would -- would give
them remedy to collect those money that's are due from -- from individuals
that are participating in the weekender program or the work release program.
>> is there a limit? I mean, why -- is 25, I mean, we know
that it costs us more than $25, so if we are going to ask, why don't we ask
for whatever it takes to cover our costs.
>> the statute that allows the sheriff to, I知 sorry, April
[indiscernible] the statute that allows the sheriff to charge has a set amount
of $25 per day. I think that they were just looking to mirror that language,
but they don't necessarily have to do that. I think that -- that there tends
to be in the criminal arena more fixed price costs, to make sure that criminal
defendant in every county is being assessed in essence the same set of penalties,
which would include costs, fines, fees, $25 has been in there for a while,
if that's not properly reflective, you might think about whether or not you
want to look at both them and have them be increased in order to be more reflective
of the costs.
>> $25 without meals? Bring your own davey crockett lunch
pail.
>> any other comments back there?
>> the only other comment that I would add to that, the point
was even if there's something that can be assessed, there really wasn't any
mechanism for them to really enforce it. In other words they can give them
the bill, but basically no hook to make them pay it. I think this is part
of addressing that issue as well.
>> you won't be able to have a hook as well as charge them.
I guess make it enforceable. To have them to charge it but make it, you know,
enforceable in some way, shape or form. There wasn't really any mechanism
for that right now.
>> the way I understood it is that it would be a can be of
you continuing to have the privilege of doing one of these. If you didn't
pay as you went, as it says, then you would know longer be able to do it.
Was that the idea from the --
>> I believe so, I believe that's what it was.
>> that would be -- that would move me to -- to be much more
supportive of this plan. Have some teeth in it. Too plane things that we have
too -- too many things that we have fees, can you pay that, you can't? That's
okay, too. Let's have the ability to have -- these folks, especially, probably,
you know, have the ability to pay, that's -- that's all that we're trying
to get is, you know, whatever it costs us to operate, let's get that fee.
I mean, I would think that if we're going to, you know, file for the $25,
if the $40 is sort of the image cam number that we use, let's put something
in there to recover our costs.
>> part of the reason that people are allowed to go into
the -- into the weekender program and to do work release is to basically accommodate
people with their schedule. At the same time serving out your sentence. If
you say, yes, I promise to pay these fees, then you kind of get going along
and go I was really kidding, excuse me, you are into the -- your end of the
bargain was to pay this fee and we would make some concessions, you are not
living up to your end because the other option is if you had said up front
I have no intention of paying that fee, you would have been sitting your time
out, 25-78 at the Travis County jail -- 24-7 at the Travis County county jail
until you completed your sentence. I think for this to have some teeth in
it that you can't reneg on the deal, either in the middle or after the deal.
>> I知 not real sure that I feel comfortable with this. But
I guess up front people have the choice of doing either one, but at some point
they say I can't afford this anymore, just sit it out. I'll stay in the jail
and lose my job. What happens they come to social services.
>> I don't think that that, very few people are going to
--, I mean, the people that really want this program really understand that
I need to pay my job, I do have an obligation, i've done something unlawful,
this is what i've got to pay.
>> as long as people have that up front, change their mind,
get laid off, they still can't do that, they can't do that anymore. Lose jobs
all the time and so -- so I think what we are saying here is that people have
a choice up front. If the situation zoo change for them, employment status,
they will have to stay in jail. My understanding when sheriff frasier was
here last month, I believe she said you would actually hand them a bill when
they came in, they would pay it up front and then they would be able to serve
for that weekend. That was the way I understood it to work.
>> if they can't -- I guess my question is only if they can't
afford to pay that anymore, what happens?
>> my understanding was they couldn't participate in the
program.
>> then they'll stay in jail?
>> or have some other option available to them. I mean a
lot of this has to do with what's worked out with the judge, also, for who
is eligible to do the weekender program.
>> so they can always come to the judge, too, to report change
of staff.
>> that's my understanding, this really doesn't impact necessarily
from the -- when they are in the jail itself, it's really what they have worked
out with the judge as far as them being present for that -- appropriate for
that program and then being on the weekender program being able to pay. I
think what will happen is that will all be a part of the equation that will
have to be assessed.
>> [indiscernible] authorized working further, getting with
the sheriff with what we think is appropriate language, in a specific draft
and then we'll look at that and either tweak it or decide one way or the other.
>> the other thing is to bring in a new sheriff because as
of December 31st when we to go the legislature margo will be gone.
>> the other thing is that there are other provision that's
give the sheriff the ability, the authority to determine if certain -- a certain
inmate's ability to pay; is that right?
>> uh-huh.
>> is that in another law? I知 thinking that's always the
sort of back drop. If you have the ability to pay, it seems to me to make
sense to require those inmates to do so. If you don't, then I don't know that
taxpayers ought to be hit with a double burden of -- cost to hassle for the
money that we don't get and us providing room and board anyway.
>> right. I don't think the intent of this was to -- was
to assess a fee where someone is not able to pay and then they end up in a
situation where they are laying out additional fines in jail. So I think that
-- that if that is something that -- as the language is drafted we definitely
would want to make sure that we are not getting into that situation, because
it wasn't my understanding where that was headed at all.
>> that's my understanding is to try to close every obvious
loophole, make sure it's to our benefit and at the same time make sure that
it's reasonable. The other thing if we are stacking this with over-- staffing
this with overtime, that's bad enough. We don't want to have to pursue additional
staff for money that we are not collecting. The specific language will give
Austin better feel for it.
>> we have a bill drafted, but I will circulate that back
total sheriff's office to make sure they address those concerns, then.
>> we are really trying to get ahead on this thing versus
waiting until the end of the year, that says that we can't ask greg hamilton
to sit down with the sheriff and make sure that he understands. See if he
has any major problems with it.
>> he may have other thoughts.
>> yeah.
>> okay. Then number 10, the bottom of page 3, confinement
as a condition of community supervision, this is also from the sheriff's office
and right now current law provides that -- that if a judge had any jurisdiction
with a misdemeanor case requires as a condition of community supervise that
defendant submit to a period of confinement in the Travis County jail, the
period of confinement may not exceed 30 days, want to change that to 60 days
so that -- that any type of -- of program that they might be participating
in would be able to go to its conclusion and the -- the defendant would be
able to have the full benefit of that.
>> it doesn't mean they will get 60 days, they will get 90
days, but it's certainly something that you leave the discretion to the judge
that they want to mandate a specific program that requires the extra time
the judge has the flexibility to be able to get that program to occur within
the context of the law. Otherwise there are certain kinds of things that you
want to get somebody into a program on, either on drug or alcohol counseling
or battering counseling and, you know, it's just kind of like they are getting
partial treatment as opposed to they are not getting full benefit of a 30
day or a 60 day 90 day program.
>> I think that's where the sheriff's office is coming from
on this. They are trying to implement some programs, giving the judges of
option, not that they have to use that 60 or 90 days, but give them the option
if the program does [indiscernible] they can take advantage of that. One of
the things brought up, a lot of them look for it to be effective around 90
days or above is when you get the most benefit from it. Allowing those types
of programs to really take hold, giving judges the option.
>> then number 11, the last one that was presented to y'all
last month, deals with -- with who can request mandatory testing of persons
suspected of exposing certain other persons to reportable diseases. And it
was suggested that nurses and counselors be added and then that the cost will
be borne by the -- the employer and not the employee.
>> well, if this is -- the sheriff office is asking for this.
>> that is correct.
>> so their concern is that a nurse in corrections may be
exposed, by virtue of that exposure must put at risk corrections officers
and other nurses, I guess?
>> you might be familiar with it.
>> yeah, that's exactly it. That they are working in a situation
where they are taking on some of those risks, they are having to pay for the
prevention of those risks. Currently right now by themselves. If I remember
the discussion correctly in the work session, maybe there's options for risk
management to look at this issue a little bit more. So I know the sheriff's
office was looking at doing that.
>> okay. What they are trying to relieve, though, is the
burden of paying for the test.
>> right.
>> in an employment context, instead of the employee foot
thank burden, it's more appropriate for the employer. We would want the tis
taken to safeguard other employees and for that matter I guess inmates, too,
so we ought to pay for it.
>> they are taking this risk on as a condition of their employment,
their job and duties.
>> this is one of those that's hard to get insured, insurance
for, as I recall, yeah, okay. Makes sense to me.
>> I would think that we would want to facilitate the testing
so at least we would know.
>> if a nurse is in the jail and gets a needle prick off
of working with an inmate, right now they don't have the right to say I would
like to have this inmate tested and I want the county to pay for my test.
They don't have that right. That doesn't seem correct when they are in that
environment, they are taking on responsibility for us. But if that were the
co that got injured or had some kind of a cut or whatever, they could make
that request. To me it's just like they are all our agents in that setting.
>> then the last two are ones that had been talked about
before. Commissioner Sonleitner has raised both of these. The first one involves
voting precinct size. In the last session this court endorsed this bill and
supported it and what it does, it allows you to have 5,000 registered voters
in a -- in an election precinct compared to the 3,000, which is currently
allowed. And that was vetoed by the governor. A copy of the bill and a copy
of the governor's veto message are attached to that sheet that you have. The
veto message says the bill would move many voters' polling places farther
from their homes. It would allow some precincts currently capped at 2,000
voters to go up to 5,000 voters, making people leave their neighborhoods to
vote and increasing lines at polling places. So we would have to come up with
a new bill that would address those concerns and then submit that bill back
to y'all for your consideration.
>> I think one of the things that we talked about, I can
certainly understand if you have some rural areas and decide to combine precincts
together, all of a sudden somebody really does have to go out of their neighborhood,
elsewhere to try to find their precinct. We have a different kind of a situation
that seems like we could craft something that in our very dense central city
kinds of neighborhoods that literally you are in some places splitting up
established neighborhoods because they exceed the 3,000 voter cap. And where
in a county like travis, for example, half of the voters are voting before
election day even occurs. We have these little parcels, simply because we
hit 1,000 we have to -- 3,000 we have to split it off. At crestview, there's
a trianglear piece split off. I literally have 10 precincts within a five
minute distance of my home simply because in dense corridors the -- the fun
one crestview methodist church and the polling place are across the street
from each other. To tell people that you have to walk across the street to
vote as the one methodist church instead of baptist, it means that we have
to spend a lot more time and money on election workers and equipment have
to very, very small little partial precincts simply to comply with this rule.
Wells branch was another good example of literally we had to create a situation
where the two precincts, one in one office and one is in the same parking
lot in a different office. They are all voting together but we cannot say
that wells branch can vote together because it exceeds the 3,000. The 5,000
would allow everybody to be at the same place, so we are not trying to create
problems, but it seems like we can craft a solution that meets the concerns
that if replacement or combination has those people voting within half a mile
of where they were going to vote anyway it works.
>> can it be written in a way where it fits, it works, you
would do that. If it doesn't work you don't worry about it.
>> it's too subjective.
>> those examples that you gave are not subjective.
>> it could be. If somebody could get into using it. I think
our better argument is to try to get to whoever the right person is to talk
to the governor. If you know that overwhelming -- the numbers are just growing
exponentially by how many people vote early. It's such an insignificant deal,
I think, especially hitting them with the cost factor because that is really
more than anything from my standpoint that's the reason that I would be the
most supportive of it.
>> the other idea that they were floating, came up at cuc,
was to have -- early voting for the whole period, including election day.
And that way you don't -- you don't have these precincts anywhere. You just
-- people just go vote at the grocery stores through election day. So what
about that idea?
>> I think it's another idea worth the county clerk's talking
to the top add vacation to say hey, here's what we are really trying to get
to. I mean the whole movement in this country is how do you get people to
vote? And --
>> more convenient.
>> the convenience factor, so all of the early voting that's
taking place, we really I think have done a wonderful job in this country
I mean if -- there are no more excuses for not voting. The people that don't
vote today just don't vote because you have every opportunity in the world
to do it.
>> seems like, though, if you get a veto message from the
same governor, that -- who is there today, saying we don't want people to
move out of their neighborhoods in order to have to vote, it seems like we
ought to try to craft a solution that does exactly that. That if there are
circumstances that can be demonstrated that people do not have to go outside
of their established neighborhood boundaries, to vote, but anyway I -- this
is one that is going to continue to be a problem in terms of it's more and
more expensive and the real problem is I vote at the same place, it's not
ever going to change for the last 22 years that I have lived in my home. But
in some of these very rapidly growing areas, Gerald a good portion of those
are in your precinct, it is really unfair that every time you have an election
they are going someplace else because we have to continue to redraw these
lines because you hit the 3,000 cap and then you've got to find a new location
and there is absolutely no consistency for a lot of new voters and a lot of
-- in a lot of rapidly growing area. Pflugerville being another one. We have
redrawn Pflugerville so many different times whereas it's not far. I don't
think of where I vote, crestview methodist, it never changes. That's another
thing that I think is hopeful for voters. People need to have consistency.
Not like where am I voting this week.
>> do you have any insight as to what you think that the
governor might have been thinking or is this just one of those deals where
it's just I don't want to think about it that much, it's easier to veto it?
I mean are there some real heartfelt feelings -- what's your read on the governor
and why he did this?
>> I think it's a politically sensitive issue, particularly
with, you know, when he vetoed this last year before this presidential election,
they didn't want to be in a situation where they were, you know, that the
perception would be that they were limiting people's ability to vote. I think
that issue needs to be addressed. I -- I think it probably can be. We have
not sat down with the governor to try to do something and as soon as you all
say go work on it, we will go work on it and try to come up with some drafts
that -- that's acceptable to the governor and acceptable to you all.
>> put it on the less and do it.
>> supporting that other idea, too, seeing if that's going
to go anyway.
>> leaving it open through election day. Okay, final one,
number 13. Appraisal of conservation easements by Commissioner Sonleitner.
Do you just want to take that one. I am happy, give you kind of a quick and
dirty in this. Come up in the balcones canyonland preserves discussions, one
of the latest technique that's we are using now, rather than having to acquire
something fee simple, the most expensive way that you can acquire property
for the bcp is the use of something called a conservation easement. This is
a situation where all development rights are being stripped off of a piece
of property and it is being accepted into a habitat conservation plan like
ours, like others around the state. It is a federally recognized habitat plan,
there are no development rights, still, it happened here in Travis County,
appraisal districts refusing to recognize that the development rights have
been stripped off this land and they want to value it at full value. Which
is, a, incorrect. But b could have very harmful effects on us trying to do
more of these conservation easement. We are very fortunate that the case where
this happened is somebody that had the time, energy, money quite frankly to
fight it. The last thing that we want to have happen is because of some arbitrary
decision being made over at the appraisal district that absolutely refuses
to recognize what's going on with the federal habitat plan in accepting a
piece of property in. If we don't get this fixed, this could muck up some
of our conservation easements, people say why would I give one if you are
going to tax me at full value when that's not the deal that's been cut. They
will insist on fee simple purchase which will cost us so much more. We have
conservation easements on the horizon. This is the time to get it fixed. It
simply, I think this can be a very narrowly drawn best of my knowledge that
basically says that if a conservation easement make ha been accepted into
a federally accepted conservation plan, that that easement will be recognized
for taxable purposes by the appraisal district. Period. And it will not allow
like April to say well i've got my -- I will make my back yard a conservation
easement, mr. Corey, please recognize that. No that's not the kind of thing.
It is to prevent those kinds of things from not happening, but somebody that
is going through a federal process, a federally recognized piece of property,
that ought to be a no brainer with the appraisal district. But this took a
year to get this.
>> all right.
>> if it's all right I would highly suggest that we work
with senator wentworth who has been a great friend to us --
>> any objection? All right.
>> thank you. Two more we should mention that was mentioned
to me by -- by the -- by the board of managers of the Travis County hospital
district. One is they would like to have the ability to issue tax anticipation
of -- they say that will help Travis County because their fiscal year starts
on October 1 same as ours, their money will start rolling in in January and
February, same as ours. And this year the city and the county, maybe more
the city than the county, have got [indiscernible] so what they would like
to be able to, to be authorized to do is to issue tax anticipation notes to
cover that period for themselves. The other thing mentioned was they believe
there are technical changes that should be made in the law authorizing the
creation here in Travis County and what they plan to do is to review the bills,
the one bill or two bill that's we filed. Whatever we filed before that was
killed in committee, and in the deep dungeons of one of those coast they would
like to figure out what [indiscernible] based to make another run on it. I
told them basically when they got the language to let us know, we would decide
whether we could help that out.
>> they would also be interested in issue number two, wouldn't
they?
>> right. That was on my list.
>> they have already started working on that, so we really
ought to make sure we collaborate with them.
>> okay.
>> now, I didn't hear any serious objections to any of these
on the list.
>> judge?
>> yes, sir.
>> can I bring up -- this is something perhaps we can just
bring back before, you know, bob starts, you know, going over there. Obviously
I think we all know that we need to start looking at some sort of impact fee
capability for -- nothing else for 873 that we are probably, you know, going
to get into a little more heavily with regards to Travis County anyway, bob.
And, you know, with all of the drainage issues and everything that we are
going to have, you know, going down the pike, I think that, you know, however
that would be drawn up, maybe you would have some ideas as to what we would
do for impact fees, I would think that union most of at least most of your
urban counties would probably see some benefits, you know, but we are all
trying to figure out ways to pay for these infrastructure issues that we are
going to have. So maybe we could think about that and bring that back at a
later time. But that's one that I would like to throw out on the table.
>> okay. Makes sense to me.
>> yeah. Anything else? Move approval of the list.
>> second.
>> authorize a legislative consultant to start working on
them.
>> thank you very much.
>> this will help some.
>> this will help great. We can now go and get sponsors from
the Travis County delegation over the next 30 days and have it all ready to
go as, you know, before session starts. Even though they have already started
prefiling bills, but --
>> our intention was to have it on the court's agenda next
week, also.
>> okay.
>> probably there are some departments who did not see the
many, many e-mails but may see this court session and wonder whether they
still have an opportunity to get legislative issues before us and so I had
in mind a follow-up date of November 23rd for them to come in. So hopefully
that conversation will be much shorter than today's.
>> yeah.
>> but it will go good to do that.
>> judge, what about the other departments? Usually they
-- they bring forward ideas for them to work on. Then usually bring it through
the court, don't they or a resolution or something?
>> yes. This was on legislation that they kind of wanted
drafted for filing. So there would be another category of stuff that will
impact them after different pieces are filed.
>> I was just wondering whether other departments --
>> that was what we tried send out.
>> we police seted them back -- solicited them back in April
or may for ideas. Now, health and human services, though, when I talked to
sherri earlier, they she did have I think three other recommendations, so
we will work to get those in front of you next week if we can.
>> that's fine, thank you,.
>> I tried do it for all of those that I thought may have
legislation and say bring it to the court on the 16th. But iments had in mind
next week on account of follow-up discussions, hopefully they will come next
week.
>> better next week than March.
>> did you not have an issue for this court related to how
cuc he is moving forward on some things? Because my memory is the cuc memo
that I got, I can't remember if you sent it or it came over from michael over
at cuc is the idea that literally everybody that has got county in their name
from auditors to district clerks to county clerks to county attorneys to district
attorneys, all of our organizations are going to band together as one voice
related to fighting any idea about revenue caps for counties. This is just
part two from what we had to do last time around. But basically getting us
on board through cuc and our other member organizations -- [multiple voices]
>> I sent that e-mail to all of you to respond to it because
we do need to let cuc know what our position is on that.
>> again, we were very strong and in fact I think Travis
County took the lead last time. We were there on revenue caps, thanks to the
auditor's office, so many more who spent many hours waiting to testify to
fight the revenue caps. [multiple voices] motion again to reiterate our position
to revenue caps as we did last session, that we should join anyone and everyone
related to a proactive and a defensive line of attack related to revenue caps.
>> I think we need to do that. Does that need to be agendized,
judge, specifically or are we okay on this one.
>> I don't think an agenda item, because there are numerous
other items to be on the alert for.
>> can we have that one back for next Tuesday as part of
the listing.
>> sounds fine to me.
>> okay.
>> thank you. Yes, ms. Bacon?
>> I didn't know if you wanted to get a quick update from
me today or whether you want me to do this next week when you put this back
on the schedule. But there were a couple of other things that the district
courts were interested in bringing forward. We have within focusing on the
new courts, obviously, but there were two other small things that were kind
of important to them. Would you like to meet -- for me to get that to you
for next week or would you like a quick update today? Obviously it wouldn't
be anything that we would be asking bob or chris to carry. I don't know what
your contemplation is for that.
>> this already in legislation?
>> yes.
>> okay. As we know, last session we had got the salary caps
removed allowing us to pay our district judges above what the state sets,
the county is allowed to supplement. There are statutory caps to that. When
we got that bill, one of the give and take to be able to get that was that
the -- that the judiciary committee wanted to have a sunset provision in there
because they wanted to put pressure on the legislature to really, truly look
at the salaries for the state judges across the state and really do something
appropriate. That is going to be an issue in this upcoming legislative session.
They have done analysis, they have some suggestions on what they ought to
be paying at the various tier levels, et cetera. We don't know whether or
not that will pass or get balled up in other financing issue that's are more
important to them right now. We don't know where that's going to go. But we
feel that it is important to keep the pressure on them by -- by asking them
to remove the sunset provision from our legislation. If -- sunset is not this
session, but next session. That's one thing that they are interested in. The
other thing is very minor, but -- but there is a -- there is a population
cap on the ability of a county to -- to set up petty cash funds in operating
departments and it makes it difficult for us in a county of our size to do
what we need to do financially with this population cap in place. We want
to see about getting the population cap removed. That is actually part of,
if I understand I talked briefly with bexar county, they as part of their
Commissioners court agenda has something similar in the works and we are interested
in maybe working with them to -- to support a bill that would remove the population
cap, that would just give us flexibility to -- to make good operational decisions
in the financial arena about what needs to have one in their office whoorks
doesn't. It wouldn't change anything else about the law that we currently
work under which requires Commissioners court approval and auditor's approval,
et cetera, it would just change that one aspect that would allow it in other
departments. Right now for our population really we can only do it in the
sheriff's office. There are other departments that need to have that flexibility
and so we would just like to remove the -- the 3.8 million out of that statute
and allow others to do it. I would be submitting to you what we drafted so
that you can take a look at it and then maybe decide whether or not you want
to be supportive at next agenda setting.
>> okay. That sounds good.
>> thank you.
>> anything else on this item today? 25 will be back on next
week for any follow-up discussion we need. Okay? I thought it passed unanimously.
All in favor? It passes by unanimous vote.
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.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, October 26, 2005 3:08 PM