Travis County Commissioners Court
February 8, 2005
Item 42
Let's hurriedly call up number 42. Consider and take appropriate action on legislative issues and proposed bills before the 79th Texas legislature. (a those here on this item should come forth at this time.
>> you all should have in your backup, specifically requested by the author of our bill related to the few district court that we are seeking to actually -- even though we have already endorsed it, to actually get a letter from us endorsing it, so you do have in your backup a letter to all members of our delegation, not simply the author of the bill, making it very clear that the Commissioners court has endorsed the creation of a new district. If anybody has any corrections, move approval of the letter being sent specifically detailing our endorsement of the new district court for Travis County.
>> discussion? Writes that letter?
>> we got it in the backup. Ann, where did the originals go?
>> [indiscernible]
>> okay.
>> [multiple voices]
>> judge, where -- what do we anticipate -- where do we anticipate putting this judge?
>> this particular one I think the thought was in terms of the magistrate has a full-fledged courtroom on the top floor of the cjc, that person can be relocated to the auxiliary courtroom an that is -- if that is what's necessary.
>> okay. I just think that we need to at least throw that out there right now because before we know it somebody said hey they are not going to be out in the street.
>> I know.
>> okay.
>> so we will send you this one letter to the Travis County delegation basically.
>> yes, sir. Mainly the author of the bill requested this we do so.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you, judge.
>> should we sign this one right here?
>> ann, is that -- where are the original originals?
>> I think these are just your copies, judge. We have originals that are not marked that we will get back to the court. Is that all that we have today.
>> bob, any other things that you need to update on? Any other things to update on or action items.
>> after they finish, give you a -- 3 minute overview.
>> okay.
>> Commissioners, last week sherri flemming our executive manager presented a very brief analysis of house bill 470. The court requested additional information which we provided in two formats, one a quick summary of the county's investment in services for mental health and services for the aging and disabled folks and residents and we also provided an additional analysis of house bill 470 that was in your packets, I think you just got a revised version of that. If you have any additional questions or anything for us, that -- I would be happy to see if we can answer those questions. Bob cam and david evans are both here, also to help answer questions.
>> so we have been asked to take a position for or against as resource person or what? What on this? Yes, sir. Should we just be informed and enlightened today? Is the intention to motivate us to act?
>> I have provided four additional pieces of material, one is the Austin Travis County mhmr board on Saturday, review of the legislation as we know it to date. You should recall from last week, this has often been talked about as a shell bill. To date there is a number of questions. I believe that the council of urban counties is tracking under major categories of the issues that I think are most pertinent to the bill. We belong to the national association of county behavioral health care directors. I serve as your director and this is related to naco, it's part of the national perspective. I have given you from this summary a sheet looking at financial are financing shifts. The bill is silent on a method of finance, silent on what funding streams, as an example, medicaid the important role that it plays, whether it would be under the authority of a regional authority or part of a privatization and outsourcing initiative that the regional board would provide plans but the state would manage its tracking system, payments and financed knew a privatized manager. Also today, I know that you have lots of reading and I listened to your last discussion, but just from today's news around Texas, I have pulled from a free clipping service the mental health issues as they are percolating around the state. I think I would be remiss if I said that everything should stay the same when in fact we know that we are reaching the limits of capacity. Our board is grappling in Travis County on how to maintain 130% of all of the contracts of people in services currently. And then also a story out of today's "dallas morning news" in which the advocacy groups in particular, mental health association of Texas, is issuing a report and of course dallas echoes some familiar jail overcrowding, crowded emergency rooms and when -- when persons with mental illness are not served, what the impacts on families, neighborhoods, community and other county services. I do think that -- that the questions that you have already reviewed that -- that your staff have put together is a good analysis to date and I would recommend that -- that we over the next couple of weeks see if there isn't an update or replacement bill that more clearly looks at what the county's role in financing would be. Also, you have from last week to this week your current levels of contribution in an array of mental health services with a range of providers within Travis County and it gives you a sense, what's not included is recent four-year analysis in which $10 million in medications through patient assistance program and through a fund balance contributions through the center have taken place, I only raise that to say that we also should track on what any other unintended consequences or any unintended loss of resources would be through this type of regional action. The best I have been able to be told to date is that -- as we consider a devolution of government, the state setting standards and then asking counties to deliver services, coupled with an outsourcing and a privatization of those services, what's the impact on people? Last of all, our board in looking at any analysis has tried to start with the consumer, the choices, the quality of service they get. I know there is an interest and a range of options. I think we have very good private providers of services. Then we have seen examples and models where private -- private for profit managers, while they have broken the -- the conflict of interest between being authority and provider, have raised the issues of new conflicts between plans that are only paid upon the denial of services. Very brief introductory remarks, but I知 glad to continue to serve as a resource and to answer the judge's question, I don't recommend that you take a position ahead of your urban counties or next pieces of information on this bill.
>> when will we know or have a better grip on -- on the decisions maybe that the urban counties, maybe capture or hold on to, as far as this particular legislation is concerned, where are --
>> I知 going to defer to your staff. I did speak to donald lee this morning. While they on I think February the 2nd outlined the issues in the bill, we'll be -- I do know that they're working on it, I do know in the near future they will have some more definitive information.
>> [multiple voices]
>> on the agenda tomorrow.
>> yeah.
>> cuc.
>> tomorrow.
>> [multiple voices]
>> priority. [multiple voices]
>> thank goodness we are not alone on this we are going to need all of the help --
>> yeah, right. This regionalization that you mentioned, I guess as far as some of the concerns, as far as dallas county is concerned, especially dealing with indigent health care, looking at privatization versus regionalization and regionalization and stuff like that, do we have anything clearer on that particular movement up there in dallas county?
>> the only answers that I have been able to get on that question is a range between 11 and the current 41 mhmr centers take cover all of the counties in -- that cover all of the counties in Texas. That's a wide range.
>> it is a wide range. Okie-doke. That's --
>> thanks.
>> we will work closely with your staff and sherri flemming and blanco ladies lead on this. Thank you.
>> thank you very much.
>> anything else?
>> the cuc is looking forward to taking some action on this bill.
>> tomorrow is the luncheon [inaudible - no mic]
>> okay.
>> good morning, judge, commissions, bob cam and marisa gonzalez, I just have several small items to report to you and one of those, two of those are several hearings that are going to -- coming up this week at the house ways and means economy. On Wednesday, they will be hearing on property taxes which will include appraisal issues, that will be upon adjournment. Then on Thursday, the same committee house ways and means will be taking up appraisal tax. And i've -- i've visited with the state-wide associations in which Travis County is a member. And they are arranging for witnesses to come in and -- and present information to the committee. And so they -- they don't necessarily need you to go over there and testify unless you want to. And -- but what they did suggest is that you contact our local delegation and -- and reinforce the position on that. So that's Wednesday and Thursday of this week. Both upon adjournment, house ways and means.
>> bob, I think cuc wanted members of the court to contact legislators regarding those two issues and then get back to cuc so they will have an idea where the counties stand. So if you get a chance to do that ... Let me for.
>> judge, I do think, I know that susan is putting together a presentation to us, but so that we can see the impact, right now lights like they are -- it looks like they are looking at appraisal caps versus revenue caps, I want to make sure that we all understand because I think, bob, it is clear that the lecture, I mean -- legislature, they are probably going to do something, I mean, if we all had to just bet something was going to take place. I think until -- susan when do you think you will be ready to show us something number-wise with regards to appraisal caps to begin with?
>> well, I知 taking some -- a lot of the data we put together last year and updating it, '04 data. Putting other analysis together and we are well into it. It's not -- I handed it out today. I still think Travis County's stance needs to be, which is what I think is that the -- because the property tax is the major source of income for counties, counties need to be pulled out of this. This -- the state relies primarily on -- i've got good data on this. On sales tax, the cities have sales tax as property taxes, transfers from utility companies, other taxes. And so I think our best strategy is to convince the legislature that -- that we need to be out of that. Appraisal caps, I think, appraisal caps do not affect the money we get. We know that. I知 not comfortable testifying against appraisal caps because I think it is a policy decision that they need to make. What an appraisal cap does is it reshuffles who pays, that's exactly what it does. But in terms of funding the programs that we have, it doesn't. So I知 -- I知 uncomfortable with that because I think that it's more of a policy than money for us and I知 most concerned about anything that caps the ability you have to raise money on those huge, you know, the justice system, the jails, those areas where we cannot control demand. So I知 real concerned that we are sitting here looking to have to build some more jails and that's because we have more prisoners coming in, inmates. So I -- so I -- you know, I guess I知 much more comfortable talking about we are not part of the problem and we can't be part of the solution. Talk about county programs and the damage any kind of capping on revenues would do. I知 for the real comfortable on -- on revenue -- on revenue caps or appraisal caps, I知 sorry. That's just my own personal opinion. Doesn't mean that it reflects what you all think or anyone else but I mean -- I degree with you Commissioner, I think there's going to be something. The least detrimental to county services is an appraisal cap.
>> that is tomorrow at 10:30 I think that it's on my schedule. Did you say that you have --
>> well, it's upon adjournment. I think they are going in at 10:00, so it will be probably closer to 11:00.
>> it's elliott naishtat with the county affairs now, portion of the legislature, is he basically aware of some of these things --
>> yes.
>> discussing exactly right now because what I知 -- what I知 wondering is I hear what we said I posed the question last time this cap on appraised -- on your property, on your appraisal of your property. Posed the question how will it trickle down and affect the counties. But then again the -- the association, the Texas association of counties, of course, cuc, all of these other folks apparently probably echoing the same thing that the [indiscernible] just stated, I would assume that they are. Really I really don't know. I just want to make sure what we are doing, especially with the appraisal cap that we are on the same page, that's -- I知 trying to look at the connectivity here of all of this. And all -- are we, are we not? As far as supporting --
>> the two main or three main county state-wide associations have taken a formal position against the caps.
>> all right.
>> and the cities I think are lock step with the counties on that issue, opposing the appraisal caps.
>> do we know whether they have prepared a handout for the legislature.
>> I don't know if they have a handout. I know meeting with don and jim last night, they said they are getting some panels together and individuals to speak on behalf of the counties. So I think there will be a written -- I don't know if it's done yet, but there will be something to file of record with the committee.
>> being on.
>> I think last time we kind of relied on susan's work as well. So when we made our presentation with members of the delegation, we had information that was specific to Travis County and that was very helpful, so that should be ready in another --
>> we should have that very shortly. Then you all wrote really a good letter that on the front of that, and you probably want to make some adjustment, but not much. I mean the issues are the same. And i'll get that to you and I -- i've got some other thoughts in terms of counties, but I think our approach needs to be, you know, no one -- I mean are they trading off -- what is it that they want us not to do?
>> uh-huh, yeah. Okay.
>> but i'll -- yeah, I think you need a joint proposal and then we meet with our delegation.
>> same package to deliver to --
>> I知 working, updating it.
>> good, okay.
>> what you just gave us, we have actually on some of these things deleted some things, so we need to be deleted from the report.
>> I was going to take a minute to explain this if I could, answer any questions. The -- if I could actually start, well, on the first page, we will during the -- from the course -- during the course of the session provide you with a written report each week that will contain the bills that your staff had requested you to endorse and for us to try to pass. That's going to be a list of about 8 bills because some of these are being consolidated, some had been dropped. Until -- we were going to wait until we actually get some bill numbers to put those in there. Then if you look at the very last page of the handout, this is what we are going to call ah priority list, then a -- call a priority list, then a tier one list for you. The tier one list will be bills that have been brought to you and you have endorsed or supported, but you have taken a formal position on, but it's not -- it's not the original bills that -- that staff brought to you and that we are going to try to pass. So we'll just -- we'll try to television them like that throughout the course of the session. As you can see, there's four bills on tier 1, and those happen to be all from the local delegation, we will be working with them to try to get those passed during the course of the session. The other list, priority list we will be changing quickly, we hope. To summarize what's going on in the priority list, we have been changing some language around, just waiting for bill drafts to come out. But we are very close to getting everything done and filed very soon. So ...
>> what's the deadline for filing bills this year.
>> dead line is March, end of March, very soon, I don't think we are going to bump on it like we did last session. On that priority list, the one that is not on here is the broke of record issue that was brought to you last week. But we will have that on there next week for you.
>> bob?
>> go ahead.
>> bob, is there any way possible when for example on the senate bill, senate bill 141, 142 for example, to look at the mirror bills such as the house bills that mirror these two senate bills? To be reflected? Just -- in other words, to show that there is a common relationship between both the senate and also the house, especially if you have dual support as far as being proposed as far as the bill is concerned.
>> sure. On the report, for example, on -- on house bill 278, rodriguez, the senate companion, listed there, senate bill 123, so the cam companion, it is listed there. We could, if you would like, we could set out that companion bill separately. Would that be helpful?
>> yes, it would be very helpful for me.
>> the other thing that we are going to do is -- is these will -- after -- there will be a description of what the bill does. In the future. Reports.
>> okay.
>> we will add that for you? So can you tell me -- a lot of news articles, basically suggesting that -- state leaders would do -- would do something a bit more proactive in support of rages programs for ex-offend -- in support of rehabilitation programs for offenders and ex-offenders, any legislation filed on it? The articles have gone away. Senator white Moore is working on -- witmeyer is working on that issue, they are trying to put together some proposals if I understand what you are saying, rehabilitation rather than building prisons, that issue, yeah. Senator whitmeyer is trying to put a program together. That's a big commitment from him this session. So as soon as we get something a little firmer from his office, we will bring that forward to you. But, yeah, it's still -- still alive and well.
>> anything else on this item?
>> that's all we've got.
>> thank you, appreciate it.
>> thanks.
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, February 9, 2005 9:04 AM