Travis County Commissioners Court
March 8, 2005
Item 34
Now, number 34 is consider ab take appropriate action on legislative issue and proposed bills before the 79th Texas legislature. Items here, the list may be obtained from any member of the Travis County Commissioners court. We've been attaching the legislative list to the agenda and court members have it too for residents interested in seeing what that list is. And we have a list of departments and items before me. Danny is first. There is a briefing we'll do on e.m.s. Funding. That will be followed by mr. Geiselman who has three bills to discuss with us. Mr. Hobby.
>> good morning, I知 bennie hobby, emergency services coordinator, and I just wanted to, if I could, review with you one I think we just need to monitor, but it's one that's important to Travis County and that is house bill 1 of the emergency communications, legislative appropriation request has gone forward and in talking with them they are pleased at this particular time that they are getting 95% of existing funding plus some exceptions that they had requested. At this time they do not feel like we need to do anything as a delegation or as a court. They feel like everything has already been said to everyone and they are kind of worn out, but they do appreciate the fact we have called and asked, and the reason why we have called and asked is that, as you know, we receive an appropriation from this budget, and so therefore it's important that we monitor it. It is important to our 911 services and today I just wanted to let you know that we are looking at this and flowing along with that, and if we get anything from the commission staff that indicates we really need to do something other than what's already on the table for them, then i'll let you now. -- know.
>> questions or comments?
>> what has been -- I moon given the [inaudible] is 95%, what has been -- the last couple of years, what have we gotten?
>> we receive about 20 percent of the overall budget. It's about a $7 million budget and we get about 1.4. And we anticipate getting more this coming year in 2006. So we do quite well. Our local council of government treats us real well as well as the commission. Right now that's why I知 up here is I want to continue to support all those efforts because it's a win-win for all of us.
>> when you say 20%, I mean so everybody understands what this is, the 911 allocation comes from what pot of money? Okay, it comes from the phone bill, the 911 service fee. And so one of the things that we want to continue to fight for in future sessions is that we get 100% of that fee back not only for us but for everyone. As you know, there is a dedicated fund of which any moneys that are not appropriated go to that dedicated fund, and at some point -- I知 hopeful we have a plan that can address that. But right now we want to try to, if we can, move toward 100% return of the service fee to our region. And I think every council of government wants that. And right now we're at about 83%. So we still have a ways to go.
>> so really the difference is the 83 to the 95 that we might -- the way that this is right now we might be able to get up to 95?
>> no, the 95 is right now what that's talking about is based upon their current budget which is statewide. Right now they are looking at their total budget as receiving 95% of it approved instead of 100% approved. And then they've asked for exceptions. So the 95% is in relationship to the total budget request that the commission has sent forward. What I was talking about as far as the service fee, that's a totally separate area. Right now we're at 83%. We want to try to get to 100%. But no, that 95 was in relationship to the overall budget for the commission.
>> when this thing was set up, wasn't it -- I mean all of these dollars that are accumulated, it's kind of like the gasoline tax that goes to the federal government. And as opposed to getting 100% of it back, I mean we get somewhere around 90%. I mean the state is the one that gets this money sent to them, and then I guess do they end up using it diskregs anteriorly? Is that the reason they wanted the money sent to them?
>> no, the way it's set up, it's set up on a formula that's based upon population and fair to all parties. It's just that I think where we're at is, as you just said, in comparing it to the gas tax, right now we are receiving a portion, not all, of the service fee. We're receiving about 83%. And that was increased the last session. Which was good. However, we are still want to go push -- it's not in this package, but we are still want to go push for 100% funding. And so when the commission puts forward their budget statewide, they will go ahead and put that full 100% funding level in there, and that's what those srepgsz for. Hoping to get that. And so right now where they are sitting at is they are receiving -- I think they asked for 35 million in exceptions and they are going to receive about half of that. So they are feeling like that that's a win, it's not totally the win that they wanted in regards to the 100% of the fee returned, but that's the best they think they can do at this time.
>> how long has this been in existence? How long have they been collecting this fee?
>> I don't know, Commissioner.
>> three years, ten years?
>> it's been a long time.
>> but when it was originally set up, wasn't it set up that the moneys that we put in it we were supposed to get those moneys back? Wasn't that our expectation?
>> that was the expectation, and of course that's the part I think we really got to continue to work on is right now my understanding is that the dedicated fund is up to about $80 million. And that's statewide, that's not our area. And so I just think that it's going to be important for us and that's why you see me up here is that I want to continue to have the message be sent that we really would like to have 100% of our fee returned to us. And --
>> that's the message that we as Commissioners, if we have connections through our delegation, we need to say that is only the right thing to do. I mean if you collect it from us, then we ought to be getting that back.
>> that is correct.
>> but if we don't push this hard, what happens is is the state ends up using part of that for whatever.
>> right now it's in a dedicated fund, and that's the other piece of it is that yes, we wanted the 100% funding, but we also want to make sure that dedicated fund is not spent and is used for 911 services because that's what it was selected for. It's the same issue and we're slowly making progress. I guess that's where I知 at. I知 going to continue to preach and to put out the message. But I just wanted you to know where we're at.
>> the final piece of that is that even though we want it to come back to the region, the unfairness that still exists within the kol, that Travis County and the -- cog, that Travis County and the city of Austin disproportionately does not benefit from that particular fund, and in fact Travis County and city of Austin property tax dollars have had to be used to make investments in 911 that other communities have been able to use the funds that have come back to this region.
>> e.m.s. Robbing -- robin hood.
>> there is still a fight to to be had for the city and county to get its proportionate share. We are funding 911 I want praofpltsz in other parts of this -- improvements in other parts of this region and our property taxpayers are having to foot things within our own county. Not fair.
>> thank you, mr. Hobby. Joe geiselman.
>> thank you.
>> three bills.
>> I want to talk about two bills simultaneously. One is senate bill 574, the other is house bill 1704 by can le. Both address the issue of development and what [inaudible] the clock with regard to permits and development regulations. Under armbrust's bill right now if someone submits an application, the fee that they would pay for the county's review of that would be whatever the current fee is. In other words, if someone submits a preliminary plan, two years later they submit a final plan for review, we're going to charge the applicant the going rate, whatever it is at the time two years later when they submit that final plan for review. Our rates basically are the cost of our service. Now, what armbrust's bill do would do is it takes that exemption out of the law which says -- basically the net effect would be whatever the fee was at the time the preliminary plan was approved, the first thing in the door, that basically locks in your fees from then on for everything else. Right now that's not the case in the law, but armbrust's bill would allow that to basically to freeze all fees the first time someone brings something in.
>> do we know what is driving this particular bill? From senator armbrust?
>> I don't know and I don't know what's driving the what I would say the complimentary bill which is 1704.
>> it's interesting they would use such a famous number.
>> I think clearly 1704 is almost a acronym now. All you have to do is say that and everyone understands, so that is not a bad thing. 1704 is to basically at what point in time you guarantee that the -- you know what the rules are and how you develop according to those rules. The new bill, 1704, basically puts in place an ambiguity with regard to what constitutes the first application. At Travis County what we have is a complete list check. When we -- when you have submitted everything that it takes to review the plan, we say, okay, this is ready for review. You now qualify to be reviewed under the existing rules here. What the 1704 version says now is whenever we're given fair notice of the project and the nature of the permits sought. That's all an applicant has to do is somehow come in and say my project is going to be this type of development and I知 going to want a preliminary plan. It's a very loose statement, and based on that alone it would grandfather themselves on any existing regulations. We believe that we need to work with the sponsor of the bill to get a little bit better handle on what that means because the way it says right now it's pretty loose. And we've just asked the court permission to work with the sponsors in both bills to first understand what's driving them, and if it's a Travis County problem, you know, where is it happening; and secondly, to basically firm up a little better -- we're all in favor of the equity issue with regard to, you know, know what the rules are when you submit and that's what you live by, but we're also very cautious about paper plans submitted where it's just the whole spent is nothing more than to stop the clock and with as little information as possible. And that's what we want to try to protect the county against is these paper plans that really have no substance to them.
>> we've even had people submit plans for property that they don't even own simply to try and get a sense of what it would mean in terms of if they went through the process. I think gordon had a word for those type of plans. Have we had any conversations with harris and the folks, some of our stakeholders that we worked with on 1445 to see if they are on one side or the other of this issue and if they could be allies in trying to be -- get the clarification and to get it away from where this is head stph-d.
>> I have not talked with harry.
>> I think that would be helpful.
>> [inaudible].
>> this is true.
>> we need to find out what problem these bills are intended to address.
>> right, yeah.
>> yeah.
>> seems to me -- and the second thing is that it would help me to know specifically what we think specifically the impact on Travis County would be. Generally I think you just described that. But when you discuss specific legislation, you need specifics. It's kind of like 574 here. Somebody went to the senator and said, basically --
>> I want this.
>> -- that one time I filed and the thing was this and then when the work was actually done a much greater fee was charged.
>> I知 sure that's --
>> on 574.
>> no doubt about it.
>> that tells me that if the county delays action on a project and increases the fee --
>> I don't think we're talking about that. I think we're talking about the first thing in the door basically sets the fee for subsequent products that are submitted.
>> I understand. But if you found something in '05 and then next what we do is in '07, which is our fault, maybe you ought to pay the '05 fee. If it's your fault, why wouldn't we get paid for when the work is done, the '07 fee that's in place at that time. See what I知 saying?
>> well, just the words you use at fault, I don't think it's a matter of fault either way. I don't think it's because of any delay. What -- because there are -- when someone spheutsz a preliminary particular, there is always a ---time before a final plan is committed because they are not going to develop the property all at one time. What this is assuring the applicant is that no matter when he submits a subsequent phase of that development, he will always get the price that when he first submitted, even though he knows it may be two or three years before he gets to submitting other --
>> or even longer. What you have to remember is you are grandfathered based to first application you filed for the project which for sub subdivision is usually the preliminary plan. But that means once the preliminary is done, once the final plat is approved, once you are down to home builders building individual homes? A. The fee for development is grandfathered back to the date of the preliminary plan approval which can be 10, 15, even 20 years.
>> that's what I知 saying though. Seems to me that if I were a legislator and the county came in and took the position that the purpose of the fee is to reimburse Travis County or to help us defray costs, it's one thing to me if I provide the services shortly after the initial documents are filed. It's another thing if there are several years later -- you see what I知 saying -- and the whole market is changed. What we paid people five, six, seven years ago was substantially less than today. There are reasonable arguments to be made. I知 thinking that on senator armbruster, we should be able to take up reasonable arguments that would at least put some qualifiers in there. You know, just whatever the fee is at the time you file applies no matter when you finish the project, I mean even would strike him as being unreasonable, I think. There are specific arguments we can make under that. I guarantee you something is saying and the county sat on that thing forever and because they sat on it the fee that I ended up paying was 150% of what I should have paid had they acted promptly. So rather than getting [inaudible], what I would say is the fee that we set is based on us getting reimbursed the costs. So either taxpayers pay for the project or the applicant. Now, but I don't -- I知 not asking that if we delay it ourselves, but we still have the bonanza of the increased fee, but I am saying if it's not due to anything on our part, why wouldn't the fee in place at the time the work is done apply? That's how I would make the argument.
>> have you contacted anybody at armbruster's office?
>> I have not.
>> we should make a phone call over there just saying practically speaking, I think what the judge just articulated is what we need. We're not trying to take advantage of anybody. Quite frankly if it's something we've done, then we ought to be held accountable for that. But I mean if it's just -- because these phases of these projects that we have, I think sometimes you know, do -- I mean there's the [inaudible] it just takes that long for them to get through. I'll be interested to hear --
>> we don't control inflation. I mean the cost of conducting business, period, five years ago was significantly less than today. I mean a reasonable argument should be made and I would come up with specifics and choose one or two projects that I believe represent dramatic examples of exactly our point. That way we seem to be reasonable. I mean there is -- I mean but I would think that the picture the legislators are left with often are kind of one-sided.
>> well, certainly near elgin we have legal requirements before how long it takes before we either approve it or disapprove it. We just need to find out what's driving this and to see if we have some allies on this.
>> we may find out that we agree in the circumstances that cause this bill to be filed. In which case we would want to narrow the [inaudible]. So I think -- am I [inaudible] I think we ought to try to figure out the motivation for this, I mean what facts they are 5:00ing on. Two is that we ought to figure out specifically how this impacts us and if we think it's harmful, we ought to be able to explain specifically why with real-life examples and then have alternative language. Because I don't know there's any -- real well, but they have a reputation for being good, fair-minded residents of Texas. Texas citizens. All right. There's a third one.
>> oh, yes. That is --
>> let me point out one thing on house bill 1704 that's of a legal nature. It includes a waiver of sovereign immunity. The net effect of that is if a developer feels like a local government is not complying with the current version of house bill 1704, chapter 245 local government code, he can go to the courthouse and get a declaratory judgment and get a judge to order the local government to come ply with the law. By adding the waiver of sovereign immunity, it happens that with open up the local government from damages claimed from the developers so the developer could not only get the declaratory judgment, but make the county pay his damages.
>> we need to describe in as graphic detail as possible potential harm. We have been through that resolving immunity.
>> tom, I believe that was house bill 574 instead of 1704.
>> it's in one or the other of them.
>> it's still a bad thing no matter what bill it's in. [laughter] okay?
>> all right, now back to house bill 1273, 1273. This is a bill that was proposed to basically eliminate the conflict between the transtexas corridor and the rest of the transportation system. Understand that this is a major corridor, a fairly wide corridor that's coming through -- well, it's coming through all sorts of areas in Texas. Anywhere from 800 feet to 1200 feet. And it will have gas lines in it, highways, you name it. It's necessarily going to be crossing over other transportation facilities. Stoeut highways, farm to market roads, county roads. What this bill does for the state, and I知 sure that's why the state department of transportation proposed it, the first of all it requires that state highways and farm to market roads connect with the transtexas corridor. And that they are not basically bisected. It's got -- they have to have cross- movement.
>> this is a good thing.
>> it's a good thing and that's why we want to be part of it. We want protection for county roads. Now, it's probably unreasonable to expect that every county road would be guaranteed crossing over this transtexas corridor. In some places you are going to have to close a county road because this will be a limited access facility. What we're asking the bill to be amended is that for our county roads that will be arterial roadways, higher classes of roadways, that they too be considered facilities that require connection to the transtexas corridor and they cannot be severed as a result of the corridor. But we think it's a reasonable request. It raising county roads that are scheduled tore updated to have parity with farm to market roads and state highways.
>> our consultants are looking for specific language. Did we share that with member?
>> yes, sir, that is part of the backup.
>> and you think that's doable?
>> we did ask them to look at the language and they did go and talk to representative ken dahl or his staff that the purpose of the bill is to increase communication between jurisdictions at the state, local level, and they very open and receptive to discussing the issue.
>> it's not campo.
>> I知 sorry. K.k.k.
>> the Commissioners court needs to formally approve what staff has done. That's why I move approval.
>> second.
>> we'll ratify y'all's action and put this language to work with the representative. Discussion?
>> basically [inaudible] determined by the transtexas authority.
>> they are still working.
>> I知 going to reserve my vote until I have more detailed information. Right now I don't know enough about the alignment appear a whole lot of things about it before I go in the direction. I知 going to abstain at this time. There's too many unknowns.
>> I think for Travis County, I say that as a general statement, but nibble Travis County state highway 130 is likely to be your transtexas corridor. So so we're basically asking that appropriate county roads connect to --
>> may not be severed. There may not be a spweupbter change, but we want to be able to take a county arterial accrues the transtexas core do.
>> at whose expense? Does it say anything in there about who is going to pay -- it's the department [inaudible] and shore which would put the cost on the state.
>> which is why they are so adamantly against this.
>> they are protecting their goods related to the farm to market roads. We need to make sure there are county roads in urbanized areas that need to be respected just as much as they are respecting state highways and farm to market roads.
>> reporter: Commissioner --
>> i'll still asking questions. Let me fin she my question, please. Joe, I guess what I need to find out on this is that had the state adamantly made -- taken a position on this as far as this transtexas corridor situation?
>> with regard to the bill?
>> with regard to connectivity.
>> I would imagine that the state is the sponsor of this bill. But with regard to the larger question of transtexas corridor, I really couldn't address whether the state has taken a position on that.
>> okay.
>> [inaudible] county roads basically.
>> respecting county roads, I still want to go a little more about it. I知 still going to --
>> change Commissioner Davis' vote to yes. 47 is next. We need to discuss things not on this list.
>> the only thing we would like to do is report on the tax bill that's going to be considered by the house.
>> 847 is next. When I say right, who is on 847? Margaret Gomez.
>> oh, this is to have the board of directors of the r.m.a. Be elected.
>> Commissioner Davis.
>> just a few questions looking at this. The drafter, which is not Commissioner Gomez, I don't want anybody to think Commissioner Gomez wrote this language, she hasn't, but the author of this language, it appears have not gone -- there's a lot of am bye ambiguities. Number one is who is going to call the election. In other words, what election has the authority to call an election. And then based on what. It's only one r.m.a. That's in the state of Texas right now and that's the ctrma and that's in Travis County. As far as this partnership is concerned. [multiple voices]
>> right. Right. And of course it is talking about existing r.m.a.'s or future or what?
>> yes. I decided to bring it over to our court to see what y'all want to do.
>> I guess, tom, have you had a chance to review this?
>> uh-huh, yes.
>> okay. Can you answer this for me? Does it say specifically in the bill who has the right of the authority to call an election?
>> does not say in this bill who calls the election.
>> all right. Does it say that it is exempt from existing r.m.a.s in the state?
>> it says this act does not affect the term of a director serving on an r.m.a. Board on the effective date of this [inaudible].
>> all right, now, does this mean that the terms of an r.m.a. Board member, does it say anything about term limits, anything like that as far as --
>> no.
>> so the terms -- okay. Does it missay anything where before the old legislation we used with the ctrma it was [inaudible] and then four persons from Williamson county for the board members. Appointed by the respective counties. But the director was appointed by the governor. Does this still -- this new legislation, does it suggest anything about how the executive director will continue, how will they be -- will they have to be elected office or --
>> it would be the -- the member appointed by the governor. I mean as I read it, that appointment is taken away.
>> under this new legislation.
>> current law is that's the chairman. This says that the chairman shr-bgtd by the other directes and all the directors are required to be -- th-pbd bill.
>> I知 sorry to interrupt. We've got some updated information that the bill may have been filed in error, and if you could give us a week to make sure that that is going to go forward, we could probably come back with some clarification next week.
>> there's a lot of ambiguity here.
>> we can do that.
>> we'll have it back on next week. 1661 is next. This is the one that [inaudible] and bill campbell are here on? First question I guess is what does this one do?
>> bill campbell with did sheriff's office, judge. 1661 by martinez tries to address the problem of the technical parole violators. And it has a number of provisions. I think is he better to speak to what it does than I am.
>> it allows -- what can happen now on technical violators, certain technical violators can be reviewed for a bond, which will be a good thing. It would put them back in the community and get them out of the system. There's a few reasons why bond would be withheld depending on the charge, the original charge. But, of course, knowing that technical violators haven't committed a new criminal act, they are violating conditions of their parole and that's why they are being incarcerated and they are there waiting on a hearing. We had tried in the past to address it through an issue of the sheriff has the obligation to house the prisoners, why kopbt they be house understand the tdcdj facility. This bill allows for a great number of the people who would be in the jail to receive a bond. If they weren't -- if they hadn't had their hearing disposed of in 14 years, there's a provision to reimburse the county.
>> I think this is d.o.a. But it's still a good bill and we ought to supported it. This is the same thing we have been attempting to do during the last few legislatures. Move approval because we support this one.
>> second.
>> discussion. Who is doing this right now? The county I take it, there is no reason we ought not to get on board.
>> bexar county.
>> bexar county.
>> yes, sir.
>> those are right thinking people down there in bexar county, mr. Daugherty.
>> aopb and this is kind of in line with everything that ms. Whitmire and everybody is doing for the whole system. I mean they will really hide behind all of this parole stuff and lessening the need for more jails and all of that. Is commit meyer the chairman?
>> question. There have been a couple articles in the number that you may have noticed that talk about a sum of money in the range of about $88 million that the legislature is going the dedicate to drug and alcohol services to attempt to reduce the jail population. It's very consistent with I think what this Commissioners court would like to see and ultimately may help with a number of issues judge that you have raised over the years relating to state prisoners and county facilities, et cetera she et cetera. It's a very positive direction and I知 very hopeful that the state will stick with this process long enough to see results from it. They have done this in the past and then two years later they stopped doing it. And so we've never really been sustained and committed to providing sufficient services to see the impact from it.
>> part of the motion too is for us to put together a written documents signed by the Commissioners court that's supportive and share not only with the bill's sponsor but the transaction legislation so they would know our position. Is that friendly? Discussion in all in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much. Up daylight on house bill 3.
>> yes, judge and Commissioners, one of the major bills of this legislative session of course is house bill three, the major tax bill of the legislative session. House bill 2, the education floor; on the house tkphror wespeak.
>> 2 deals with what?
>> house bill 2 is the bill that talks about tuning and operation of the public school system. The way the legislature has decided it is to say that the funding for house bill 2 is going to come from existing state general fund along with budget cuts or other budget adjust -pltd that the legislature will choose or considering this session. House bill 3 is really the way it has been structured about funding property tax relief. House big three provides for 50 50 cents reduction in the school property tax rate which costs approximately $35.4 billion for the biennium. And house bill three proposes to pay for that in a number of ways. The key elements of which are a 1 point is a% tax on the first $90,000 of payroll for everyone in the state who is subject the unemployment insurance. Except for governmental entities. So Travis County would not be subject to this tax, but literally every other employee in the state with minor exceptions -frbgs state employees, it's, would be subject on an annual basis to about 10e $035 taxed. It's done quartly so if apply aoe only tpaoeud for thraoeu months it would be calculated on that basis. This would replace the state's current franchise tax, which as many of you have read in the parents is a tax that is not -- papers, it is a tax not paid by a variety of corporations t attempt here would be to expand a tax to essentially all forms of business in the state. The other things that bill does is it raising the sales tax from 6 continue to 7.25, expands the base to auto repairs, newspaper and billboard advertising, snack foods would have a separate 3% additional tax as on part of the state effort --
>> [inaudible] [laughter]
>> sugar snack food.
>> pretty much anything if you like it, it applies.
>> if you like it, it's bad for you.
>> if it taste good, the 3% counts. Tobacco -- the tobacco tax would go from 41 cents to 1.41. This bill has already experienced some controversy. It was called back, it was kicked out of committee a couple days ago, called back yesterday. The committee posted the meeting time at 3:00. Then at 6:00. Subsequently met, made some revisions to it, all in an attempt to gain a fiscal note from the comptroller's office that conformed to the numbers the bill need to do produce. So there's quite some difficulty even getting to this point. I should further note that the senate has been talking about a very different approach on the business tax. Their approach has not been a so-called tax a wages or payroll tax as the house is considering, but rather they are talking about working with the state's current franchise tax, expanding it to all forms of business so partnerships and everybody like that that's currently excluded would be included. And then changing that tax so that it takes a tax base that is developed by adjusted federal gross income, so your tax return basically, plus all compensation over $30,000 per employee. So all compensation over $30,000 added back into the tax base times 2%. Or 1.9%. Something like that. That raises a pretty incredible amount of money. And would fund property tax relief as well as additional dollars that the senate has been promoting for health and human services, higher education as well as public education. So that's just a quick summary. The school bill is likely, unless there is a point of order or some other procedural problem to be debated all day today and possibly all day tomorrow. House bill 3 would very likely be on the house floor either on Thursday or Friday or possibly next week if the education bill takes longer than anticipated.
>> but this takes appraisal caps and revenue caps off the table?
>> yes, sir, I知 sorry I left out maybe the most important part of this to you and I apologize. It's been that -- I managed to work until 3:00 last night. That's how crazy the system is right now. It's so accelerated, it's a very different session than has been the case in recent memory. So I apologize for overlooking that minor point. Representative villarreal did offer an amendment in committee which I think the counties and the cities believe is a very positive step in the right direction. It essentially puts the rollback rate back to 8 cents. It does impose a truth in taxation which I am going to tell you right now I don't want to try to describe to the court because I知 afraid I won't tkpweut it quite right, but I do not perceive it to be a significant change from current law.
>> what's the latest on the public school finance bill now? Latest recommendation?
>> I知 not sure I understand your question, judge.
>> so the funding approach for public school finance in the latest bill is what?
>> the funding would not come from house bill 3 in theory, it would come from other sources of general fund already available or indicated by the comptroller to be available to the state and from budget cuts, which the appropriation committee is continuing to work on. They are trying to find as much as $3 billion according to news reports of savings in the state's current budget which is expected to be about $135 billion this biennium. So the logic of it is we're not passing a $5.4 billion tax bill. What we are doing instead is having a revenue neutral bill which will shift $5.4 billion of property taxes to $5.4 billion of other taxes. A change in the way we tax business, an increase in the sales tax, et cetera. That's the theory of it.
>> okay.
>> would that take Texas to the highest sales fraction 6 and a quarter to 7 and a quarter?
>> yes, sir, I believe we would be number one in the nation.
>> so that means that here in Austin, Texas, I guess, what would that be as far as when the city adds their on.
>> it will be 9.25%.
>> 9.25 cents on the dollar.
>> on the dollar. And it will apply to a few other things it does not apply to today. I would say this picture is likely to change very considerably over the course of the next several weeks. So it would be premature to assume that this is the final package.
>> okay. Anything further on this item? If so, please come forward. This is legislation or proposed bills under item 34.
>> we do have a letter if the court -- draft letter if the court wanted to take a position against revenue caps and circulate that to the delegation, I can distribute that if you are interested in acting on it today.
>> on the revenue caps?
>> yes.
>> that's consistent with our position so far.
>> let me pass that out.
>> I would move approval of [inaudible].
>> Williamson county look at git back this afternoon. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Commissioner Gomez temporarily away.
>> move a hungry motion until 1:30.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That 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, March 9, 2005 11:02 AM