Travis County Commissioners Court
March 22, 2005
Item 40
40. Consider and take appropriate action on legislative issues and proposed bills before the 79th Texas legislature.
>> there's a number of other folks from county and staff people. We would like for them to go first, we can wrap up if you would like.
>> that's fine with me.
>> good morning, sir, good morning, members of the court, thank you for allowing me to take a few moments of your time. You were kind enough in this fiscal year to authorize moneys for visiting judges in j.p. Courts. We have tried to hammer out a procedure when we think is workable. Judge Biscoe who that the authority under the law to make the appointments is acceptable. Judge narrajano is okay for our -- our procedures to do the mechanics of it, make sure the appointments are made. Gone through with an auditor and management and budget folks to try to make sure that we have the correct procedures for getting the folks paid and with the correct amount. We have encountered two questions about the law. The first and less serious is can judge Biscoe delegate that authority to judge narrajano who is the administrative judge for the county courts at law. My opinion is yes, other opinions is that it's questionable. Certainly it's not an overwhelming problem. Judge Biscoe can counter sign that is solvable under the current law. We have a second problem, which is a little bit more of a thorn in our side. And so that -- so that problem we think may take an amendment of -- of the statute. Now, the governing statute is 27055 of the government code and -- and the question is what kind of work can a visiting judge do? What purpose can it be appointed for? Now the higher courts, they can be appointed for the purpose of docket reduction. The special statute that governs j.p. Courts lists about -- about four or five things and specifically it says absence, recusal, illness, injury or other disabilities. It makes no mention of docket reduction. And there are those lawyers amongst us who feel like that would preclude appointing a visiting j.p. Just for the purpose of reduce being backlog and speeding up the justice process. We would like to ask our representatives in the legislature to see if we can either amend that provision to allow visiting j.p.s to be appointed just to help with the workload or to pass a special provision just applicable for Travis County that would make clear that we could appoint visiting j.p.'s just to deal with -- with the backlogs and -- and overloads on our dockets. Judge narrajano has been kind enough to draft the -- draft the language for the statute. We think it will work. We are here to ask your permission to present this to mr. Cam and our legislative kel addition for their help. Delegation for their help.
>> the only thing I wanted to add to judge evans is we definitely want to keep it on a local level. It would be only here in Travis County. As you may or may not know, I agreed to take on the task, the administrative responsibility on February 16th and we started and then in reviewing when could we use these temporary judges, we realize that there might be a problem with that. So this is -- this is some language that I came up with. Part b is I basically tracked the language, that is using the statute as it relates to the use of visiting judges in the higher courts. So that's basically the language that is already in the statute, but again applies only to the higher courts. Our intent is to try to address the two issues, the two possible issues, legal issues. That is related to the use of visiting judges at the j.p. Level and the appointment of those visiting judges to reduce the docket.
>> it was our intention when we -- when we addressed this issue during the budget process.
>> technical question. How do we do this? Bob or chris? After the filing deadline, do we have to find something to piggyback on? Do we still have the ability with a local bill? Um help us out here in terms of what is the best strategy because I agree, it's a problem. But it's -- we're a little late in the process.
>> the statute to which doug referred is a state-wide statute and so we would try to do it as a local bill, as a request -- as they requested. Local bills are not subject to that 60 day filing deadline and -- but we would have to publish notice in a newspaper, that would have to be out there for 30 days. So what we would do is try to get the bill drafted this afternoon as a local bill, if we can do that. And -- and then we would go ahead and file it. They won't refer the bill until we finish those publication requirements. But I still think that we would, if we file it in both the house and senate, we would probably have enough time to get it in if -- if everything goes right.
>> do we have a potential sponsor?
>> the only representative that I have spoken to is representative keel, he was receptive and optimistic, but he certainly cautioned me that it might not be doable in the time frame that I have.
>> move that we try to get it done.
>> second.
>> Commissioner Davis?
>> thank you, judge. I guess I need to get some clarity. And my problem is that -- if the authority is taken away from the judge, judge Biscoe --
>> we're not taking it away from you, sir.
>> as far as -- as far as appointment is concerned.
>> we are simply going to give him the option to designate someone else to do the administration.
>> all right. The administration. We still will be responsible for --
>> the law still gives him that, we don't propose to change that. We just give him the option of designating a substitute. The way we are doing that now, I appoint someone, judge Biscoe also signs off on that order appointing that temporary judge.
>> okay. The reason I posed that question, because I was concerned about, you know, budget. Every year, regardless, the visiting judge and everybody else, we still have to go through a budget deal every year. Every year the budget have to stand on it's own merit regardless, I didn't want that, I was thinking if this was taken over from judge, I had some concerns.
>> it is not. It is still kept with the judge or his designee.
>> I wanted to make sure, I wanted to make sure to get an understanding on that. Thank you.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you, once again, thank you.
>> good luck. Ment.
>> next?
>> joacial john kuhl, we are here today to discuss house bill 3646 baxter. Basically similar to what we have seen in a previous session that potentially affects both bcp lands and the city of Austin proposition 2 lands. The issues that we got with it are that basically what it does it lays out applicability that is very broad in terms of language and would apply to all conservation easements and land acquired with public money. And what it -- what it basically would do is take that land and require that -- require that we on an annual basis provide notice and an amendment to our existing regional 10 a permit to -- to add -- potentially add it to the lands that are protected under that permit. Then after we have made that "amendment application" u.s. Fish and wildlife service would make an appropriate evaluation based on the science. The problem with that is that we would essentially be required to take all of that land that has come in during that calendar year, put it into that application and then have fish and wildlife evaluate it. We find that awkward and clumsy and, you know, sort of wasteful in terms of our labor. And the city of Austin's as well. The other issue, of course, is that all of those lands that come in, are not acquired for the particular management purposes that we have within the preserve lands. For example, you know, proposition two lands are water quality lands and involve enhancing the -- the actual amounts of water coming into the ground water and so forth and require getting rid of juniper, which might be a conflict with management for endangered species that we're trying to protect. So that again is an awkward thing. The other thing that this bill does is it has a stipulation in there that -- that requires notice of any meeting that's are held with federal officials with all -- it requires us within 10 days of the meeting to have written notice given to all land owners within the acquisition area of the preserve boundary. And it requires the presence of one of those landowners at that meeting. Or there isn't a meeting, okay. We find that very cumbersome and wasteful as well. I guess we're basically here to tell you that we have got issues with the bill, we intend to communicate with the representative and see what we can do about it.
>> is there a person not -- I mean if they just wanted to be obstinate they could say we can't make that meeting, find anybody, so in essence that would stop us from having that meeting. Have we talked to the representative, have you all, john?
>> we have not yet.
>> or kevin? I mean obviously, I mean, what we need to do is probably try to have that meeting, you know, from not that he hasn't worked with you guys because he has, I mean, I would highly suggest that we go if I can, you know, help broker that meeting, I mean, I?m more than happy to do that.
>> appreciate it.
>> you know, kind of the -- how strange this could actually get is that I would have to take with me potentially a whole lot of people to washington d.c. Every year simply to have a meeting with the department of interior to update them on our grant application, et cetera. Some of these folks may or may not ever get their land acquired. We may not need it for the acquisition of this plan. I mean, it -- sometimes we may be having discussions about one landowner and another land owner could be privy to things that are part of the real estate negotiations or somebody choosing to go the donation route. So the one about the meeting is just -- it's troublesome, cumbersome, I highly suggest that we visit with representative baxter about what are you trying to accomplish here, is there another way? You know, people aren't being included in meeting notices, we can remedy that. I?m just not quite sure what this is intended to do, but it could have a whole lot of unintended consequences and I don't think david smith's room up at the department of interior is large enough to have all of these folks traipsing up to washington d.c. The other piece of it, I?m still not really understanding what they are trying to accomplish there because when we take in land, we don't need to amend the plan. It's already part of the plan. So again I?m not quite sure what that's intending to try and take in.
>> I think it's specifically targeting those lands that are not currently within the acquisition area.
>> that's not how this reads. What this basically says is for example on ryland we would have to amend the plan because we've acquired more than 100 acres. And I don't think that's what it was intended as well. You don't need to reopen up the permit to do a lot of the stuff that we are needing and this presumes that we need to get those lands that are not even within the boundary areas. I -- again, I think a good strategy here is to go visit with representative baxter and say, what are we trying to accomplish here and is there a way that we can try to accomplish that that doesn't create a whole lot of other problems.
>> does this have state-wide application or just this area?
>> I?m not aware as to whether he's bracketed locally or posted -- but I can find that out.
>> well, last time I?m sorry, judge, last time out he filed it atmosphere a local bill and how it got killed because it did have state-wide implications. The way this thing is reading it's talking about any conservation agreement, habitat conservation plan, this could impact Williamson county, we certainly have the toad over in bastrop county. I think it goes far beyond and -- and again I think the -- we ought to visit with representative baxter and see if --
>> let's visit with him and see if we can iron out these differences and have it back on next week.
>> yes, sir. That's all --
>> let me know if you need help.
>> I?m happy to be helpful as well in whatever way I can, even if that means staying out of it.
>> I believe that's all that we have got for t.n.r. Today.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> next.
>>
>> I know that you are going to get some other updates, the bills are like hand grenades trying to city of revenue [indiscernible] conceivable on local government. So just following them is problematic. [multiple voices] what I?m passing out now is the -- I?m just going to talk about a -- senate bill 18. There are two sheets.
>> is this the same?
>> senate bill 18 is actually the worst of the revenue cap bills that I have seen because not only does it bring the rollback rate down to five -- [multiple voices] one has red, the other just blacks.
>> okay. Got it straight.
>> what sb 18 does, it eliminates the new property from the calculation of the effective tax rate. And what they did is just simply lined through it. It also eliminates the loss of property in the numerator of the calculation, not only is the rollback rate set at five with an automatic election set at five, but the entire meaning of the effective rate has changed. What I tried to do is recast ours to say what difference would it have made? And the one with the red, you look the at that one, in fy '05 these are the calculations that we did for our budget in black. If we had been subject to sb 18, the calculations in red are what we would have had. What that means is that at the effective rate, we would have $6.9 million less than we did. That's just out of the chute. That does by the way represent because of the growth that we've had in this county a 3% reduction right off the top. So what this bill basically does is it does not change the county's responsibility for servicing new growth, but it takes all of the money away that would have been provided by new property pulling it outside of the effective tax rate. It would have changed the rollback, we would have lost a potential of $14 million at rollback. So this bill is absolutely the worst revenue cap bill we have seen out there. It has been referred to senate finance to my knowledge it has not yet been set for hearing. The second sheet, the one with the two black, what we did there is we said, had we used sb 7 in '04, in other words or rocking along with sb 18, the first one is the transition year, what difference would it have made? The difference between '04 and '05 based on the assumptions of sb 18, we would have lost $1.7 million at effective rate and we would have lost $8.8 million at the rollback rate. These are staggering numbers for us. So these -- this bill is -- is sponsored by -- by senator williams and janek. I?m trying to get a meeting with one or both of them before the hearing, but for sure I will be testifying on -- on y'all's behalf and as you have authorized notice do this on revenue caps. Some other I think interesting information as were the continuing concern for counties as the public is watching this as -- as it is all well and good to say let's cap revenue. But what the discussion that is not taking place in these committees is what impact that has on the mandatory services that counties need to provide. That is the missing equation. In the house, where they talked about reducing property taxes, what they did there is they took property taxes, they reduced a third of the schools, and replaced it with other taxes. On the county's half, there is not a replacement. So it is -- it's really a very limited and yet damaging kind of discussion because what we're supposed to do is not being limited. The other thing is even in this session, the legislature is passing things that will in fact cost us more money. And whereas cities have more flexibility in terms of where they get their revenue, and the state has flexibility, we have very little. We are getting all funds about 63% general fund about 88%, of our money from the property tax. So if in fact those caps come on, it will dramatically impact flexibility that you have to meet mandated expenditures. One of the things -- anne, would you mind just bringing that up there so I can keep talking. I don't want to take too much time. One of the things that's we are -- as we're looking and testifying, you are saying to yourself what disimps does this make. I don't think the public understands this. There are many mandated expenditures that we do not have control of demand on. One of the newest is indigent defense. What I did was I put together from the fy '05 budget all of the trial courts. And you can see we've got the -- the district courts, the county court at law, then we have juvenile public defender because that is indigent defense. As you can see, on the bottom where it says total budget, the total trial court budget is about $17.4 million. Roughly 7.9, almost 8 million of that is due to indigent defense mandated by the state of Texas. In our trial courts, 45% of what we spend in those courts is -- is on services primarily indigent defense. But there are a few other things like court reporting. So those mandated expenditures, a person is arrested, the law requires us to provide a lawyer, we comply with that law, and that's just one example not the only of the impact on these services of state mandated expenditures. So -- so these bills continue to keep coming up. I?m testifying on our behalf, I?m working with the Texas association of counties, they are very concerned about all of these bills. Where revenue and appraisal caps did not go into house bill 3, two bills passed out of house ways and means to the floor of the house, one of them is going to be heard on appraisal caps, I believe, Wednesday. The other one has not yet been scheduled, that's the revenue cap bill. These are starting to come out of the senate as well. So I think we have our work cut out for us throughout the session to stay right on top of these and -- and you know you all need to keep calling our reps to remind them of these things, they have a lot of things on their minds. But -- but these are serious bills and while on television our elected officials need to join in. They need to be calling and talking to reps that they know so that they clearly understand the impact on Travis County. The other thing that is not answered in -- I?m asking that question as I testify, is if in fact you need to go out past 3%, and you have to have an election and the people vote no, I don't know what you are going to do. I mean, if that is on indigent defense, what do we do? The state says you are going to provide the lawyers, people say we don't want to pay for it. If we have to expand our services in the jail, add more inmates, the population goes up, we have to go over 3% to do that, if the electorate says no, I don't know what options that you have, I think that's a fair question for legislators. That's really all that I have to say. If you have any questions we will try to answer it. Kind of a good piece of information. One of the things that I?m doing is this. We are gathering information, I?m going to have diana put it in a book for each of you. It's interesting things, one of the things that I wanted was an average homestead value of every county in the state of Texas. It's interesting. That precise information is not available, but single family residents, that is available. And we have gotten that number hot off the press yesterday and anne, again, if you would give each of them just one of these. One of them is alphabetical, the other is descending. Whether we consider this a positive or negative, we are number two on the list. The average homestead is a little bit different than this. But not materially because this is all single residence. Some of those are homestead, some aren't, but it's very close. And '03 is the best number that's we have. But it is something that I think as people are talking, too, about, you know, why does this cost this in Travis County and why does this cost this. When you look at the cost of the houses throughout the state, you can see the disparity. It's really kind of a stunning, stunning number to look at.
>> susan, chris or bob, I mean, why don't you take the microphone, one of you all probably want to weigh in on this in a second. Is what we really are facing here the legislators saying, we are going to go back home and -- and people are going to look at us and say, you know, what we really want, we want less government spending, that's the reason that we are going to put these restrictions with these caps on you. And you know it is true that you have indigent attorney fees, indigent health, all of these things that you know that we have to address. Is their answer or their response you know what you ought to do, you ought to not spend as much money on after school programs, you ought to not spend money on envision central Texas, I mean, we would have a list, let's face it, siewz soon, if somebody were to tell us you know what, we think that government ends up spending money in things that I know that the community comes to you and says that you need them, let's face it, I mean,, you know, after school programs, all of the things we vote for them because we think that we are voting for the right reason because if we don't, I mean, they end up being in jail, we can all tell the story. Is that what is going on really? I mean so whoever -- I mean I don't know if they responded to you susan when you have testified or chris what do you think their thought is?
>> I think there are several things going on here. But the compelling and regularly stated rationale is that in the past when the legislature has made property tax reductions, when governor bush, when president bush was governor, there was a general sentiment that those property tax reductions were immediately erased as a result of other local government property tax increases. And so the net result on the average homeowner was -- was immediately you know disappeared. The -- the problem with that -- there's several problems with that logic. But one of them is that the size of the property tax increase that's being considered right now, 50 cents or roughly a third of school property taxes, absolutely is dramatically more than what occurred when bush was governor. Those were much, much smaller, worth perhaps a total of a billion dollars, reductions. This is five to seven billion dollars in reductions. I mean, it's a much bigger number. It is -- it is frankly not possible, I can't imagine local governments erasing that much of a reduction in any immediate sense. That's number one. Number two, I have been concerned, I think susan has done a very good job of not kind of scratching this scab, the fact of the matter is that cities and counties are not equal in this debate. Counties have a much more compelling case for two reasons than the cities do. Those two reasons are first, you rely much more disproportionately than the city does on this source of funding and secondly a much greater percentage of your budget is the direct result of state required mandates. You have much less discretion, in other words, over a percentage of your budget that you must spend in order to be in compliance with laws that either the state or the federal government primarily state government imposes upon you. And yet the counties from my perspective have not been the predominant face on this problem. The legislature has -- has to some extent looked at this as a one-size fits all issue. There -- you know, there are certainly strength in numbers and certainly I?m not suggest thank we don't recognize the cities as allies. But the fact of the matter is in my judgment can counties are different. The solution to the concern that the legislature might be expressing is different. When we talked about this issue last session, I think we had meetings in some of your offices, Commissioners, including I think yours, Commissioner Daugherty, where we talked about if it looks like this is going to move forward, I do not know that's the case right now. I think it may have the support in the house, it may not have support in the senate for example. I don't know the answer to that. But if it looks like it's going to move forward, it seems to me that we might want to shift tactics from lock step with the cities to oppose anything of this nature to trying to determine if there are reasonable exclusions that we should ask the legislature to make. For example, it seems ridiculously patently unfair to me that we should have to pay for state prisoners in your facilities without the ability to be reimbursed for those costs around not have that be -- and not have that be excluded from this measure. So perhaps we can get some relief from it, if we want to reopen that discussion. Now, I don't know susan if there's been any talk about -- at one point we had a whole list of exclusion. All the way ranging from terrorist activities to criminal justice related issues to -- to environmental or health and safety crisis or whatever. But -- but at one point I saw on the list, susan, that you know we may want to consider revisiting those are just? General thoughts. I think we are going to see tomorrow I think when mr. Bo hack's bill is on the floor, he needs 100 votes. That's a pretty big number. This issue has been worked very hard as I know all of you know by lots of very thoughtful and capable people. They may fall short in the house tomorrow and that will --
>> it's the appraisal cap bill.
>> it's in the form of a constitutional amendment, judge. So it's hjr 35, it actually will require 100 vote. I watched the Austin city council's presentation on getting ready to gear up for a bond election. One of the charts that john stephens has, susan, they went ahead and got a chart together meant to show how are we doing compared to other jurisdictions. But one of the things that came up with is -- is that the city of corpus christi had their bond rating lowered because they went with very serious revenue caps, voluntarily, in that city and had a huge drop. That's why their number was so poor in relation to other large cities. The city of houston, also just very recently had their bond rating dropped because of a voter initiated -- two different versions of how they could do it, but it was the less radical of the two versions but it was about voluntarily reducing refer news. They wound up as well getting about half a notch knocked off their bond rating because the bond firms are looking at it saying you don't have the freedom and ability to respond to the kinds of things that are -- that are necessary.
>> I?m hopeful that senator shapiro repeats her story you're right the one billion dollars that governor bush sign understand terms of tax cuts was gone in I think a year or no more than two years. Of that one billion dollars, $940 million of creep occurred because school districts. All of the remaining cities, counties and hospital districts were only responsible for 60 million. 60 million out of the one billion was specifically related to cities, counties and hospital districts. There was a problem with creep, but it had nothing to do with us. And there's some other crazy things in there as well. Why are we required to go by jail standards but the state of Texas is not. Why are we required to do jjaep, but now they are talking about eliminating our dollars. One of the biggest discretionary items that we all have is something we just reviewed five minutes ago. It's called e.m.s. The local government code puts the requirement for e.m.s. With cities. Not with counties. There's a big chunk of discretionary money that we are not required to do. Certainly they are not talking about that's how we would start to looking at the after school comparisons appeal in comparison to $9 million that we invest annually in star flight and e.m.s. Programs that we are not required to do.
>> it's hard to tell what really makes a difference because cuc's staff and member counties have been talking about that having a the urban areas, I wonder how much does the perryman report in make any difference to the legislators? It talks about the impact that revenue caps and appraisal caps are going to have on counties. One of the items is the lowering of ratings for counties. But I have to wonder, do those reports make any difference? To legislators?
>> I think they do. Certainly mr. Perryman is perhaps the most respected economist that the Texas legislature listens to. The only comment that I would make, I consider him a friend and a great guy is that he's kind of the report on every single issue right now. So to -- to some extent it may be just a little bit deluded his weighing in on some of these issues, I thought his report on this issue was very well done. It was factual. I say this without being disrespectful to anybody in the legislature. This issue seems to keep moving forward in spite of pretty compelling amount of facts which leads me to the conclusion that -- that it's really more of a political issue than a -- than you know than a policy issue or a you know issue that's -- that's trying to solve some specific concern. The fact that Karen just mentioned to me is the most compelling one that i've heard and I know everybody has heard it. It hasn't been the counties and cities that have been responsible for the problem that I mentioned to you, Commissioner Daugherty, that we are allegedly trying to address. That is we don't want a situation to arise where the legislature makes a huge property tax reduction, then overnight the cities and the counties erase that reduction. I mean that is -- that is the stated rationale that I have most regularly heard for -- for these bills. And the facts just, you know, just don't support that that should be a concern when it comes to the county. On top of all of the other simple facts that these costs are being forced upon you by a state in most part trying to balance its own budget. And one of the ways it's trying to balance its own budget is by -- by pushing some of those costs or some of those decisions to -- to the local level.
>> I have to kind of join Commissioner Daugherty as well wondering what the message, what message am I supposed to be getting out of all of this? Out of their actions? The bottom line is it sells at home. It sells at home.
>> yes, sir.
>> that's -- let's face it, it's politics 101. When you go home you say you know what not only did we come back with a third of your school taxes, rzzzzp gone, we also, you know, told all of those people we are foolishly spending your money that you are going to have a cap on it. So they probably think well heck it's going to cost me 100 bucks to get reelected with that story.
>> they are just giving a message to all of us that they know how to run city and counties and hospital districts better than the local elected officials who are running cities and counties. We are accountable to the voters. I will tell you, in the 10 years that I have been here, we've actually had some votes of our Commissioners court where we have affirm actively raised taxes, days before the election, lovely timing and it was for things that were supported, one of the big ones was two cents to do e.m.s. And the citizens said yeah, boy howdy. I didn't even get any flack from my opponent because it was something that made sense. We went ahead and did another two cents related to state highway commitments. That's the one that just really grinds me. Is that we raised taxes to help out the state of Texas and boy this is the thanks we get? I can tell you that will end partnerships of counties saying you know we ought to invest in the state highway system. Why should ya? It's going to come back and be taken against you.
>> have we put our responses in writing and shared them with the legislators?
>> the primary method of communication has been through susan's testimony with the various committees. I think we have provided them with written materials on a number of occasions at the same time we testified.
>> do we need to get a new written piece for our Travis County delegation?
>> I think we should. From y'all. I think we should and I think. I think others need to do the same.
>> that's the thing. Our delegation, judge, is very responsive.
>> I?m not sure I know where every member of our delegation stands quite frankly.
>> we ought to let them know where we stand, especially if this looks like a new run on this.
>> can you tell me exactly you and chris both. Can you tell us where the movement is. It won't slow down, regardless, it appears it is moving right along. At what stage of movement do you think that we are in, [indiscernible] intervening very strongly to ensure that we get a strong message across. At the end of the result, at the end of the day, this thing goes through, it really will fall on the back of the local elected officials as far as folks doing service because we look need to look at the offset of the shortfall on whatever occurs here. To continue to do service that's we have done in the past.
>> I think as Commissioner Gomez noted there has been a very committed, very sustained response to this for several really for months. So -- so that is happening. I -- I wouldn't recommend, you know, ratcheting that up. I think we have to, you know, as kind of a steady pressure kind of a situation. The situation may change tomorrow if we find out that there aren't 100 votes on the house floor for the bo hack amendment. That may cause a reconsideration. The bill has not even been heard in the senate yet. And I think a lot of people are -- are really going to come very, very prepared with the senate committee meets. My sense is the senate is going to have a pretty tough time on this issue. Again, we are kind of showing up at every opportunity with this issue.
>> chris, some of the same questions that's been possessed here in the last -- posed here in the last Texas association of counties conference that was a few weeks back, some of those same concerns were also brought up from -- from other county Commissioners and judges. On the same issue. And of course seems to be a lot of grave concern. To ensure that we put a halt to this. This was my point.
>> yes, sir.
>> I move that we move our [indiscernible] with an eye toward putting some of the comments that we made today in the document. I don't know that I heard that the -- that the argument about the one being tax relief state-wide [indiscernible] by our local governmental entities, I think we ought to put the response if it's factual made a few minutes ago, made sense to me to clear that up. Any other reason that's we think we can put in the one or two pager to share at length with the Travis County legislative delegation and anybody else that we think we should and if we could have that ready before the end of the day to get the court to sign it, what I have in mind is reviewing comments that we have already made, points that we have already made, and seeing if we should add to those. Okay? Is there a second to that?
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Okay?
>> we have got two of our judges here. That we need to get to.
>> okay. Thank you, susan.
>> sorry, sherri.
>> okay.
>> good morning. Or is it afternoon?
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> if we don't reach a compromise, it will be withdrawn.
>> let's see if we can take a wait and see position?
>> yes, sir.
>> this is one where I am so appreciative of the county courts at law trying to see if there's a way that you could be helpful with the backlog. And I think some of us have gotten some informal discussions on this, but this is one that there may be some unintended sequences, and it really -- consequences, and it really should have come to the Commissioners court for an official movement forward because it just -- it's tougher when we have to pull something back. I wish you good luck on your talks, but kind of like all the other things related to the county courts at law and the district courts that come through the Commissioners court first to authorize going forward with the filing of a bill, not afterward. But we so appreciate it.
>> the reason it was filed is very noble and wonderful, but everybody is trying to say how can we work together to try and work with the caseloads, but it may have operational and political implications that were never the intended result.
>> and definitely we're having those discussions to make sure that we address any issue.
>> so we're just going to wait until we see what happens?
>> okay.
>> thank you. Urks.
>> house bill 470?
>> good afternoon, judge, Commissioners, sherri fleming, executive manager for health and human services. As you know, hhs came forward with our lobbyists and mhmr several weeks ago to bring to your attention house bill 470, which in effect would reorganize mhmr as we know it today. Fortunately, last week a committee substitute for that bill came forward just prior to the house committee on human services hearing testimony on that bill. Several of the concerns that we had were just in terms of the mental health authority responsibility; however, there was a provision in that bill that caused some concern, and that provision allowed for counties of a million population or greater to be recognized as single county regions. We felt like that that was an opportunity that Travis County should have, not only because that would allow us to preserve something that looks really close to what we currently have with mhmr and our relationship with mhmr, but also the state demographer projects our population to exceed a million by 2010. So to exclude us from the opportunity to be considered as a single county region and of course, it would be a decision that this Commissioners court would make, should the time come, however, we felt like we should be included in the pop -- should be included with the opportunity to be a single county region. So therefore staff did provide testimony to that effect. There was quite a bit of testimony, about five hours' worth of testimony on the committee substitute, and it's my understanding that at the conclusion of the testimony that representative Davis did withdraw the committee substitute bill. So staff is here today to bring this update on the court, but also to request that the court consider sending a letter to representative Davis and copying our legislative delegation supporting the addition of or a change to the population that would allow for a single county region. And that population as suggested by the conference of urban counties, would be to reduce it from a million to 650,000. And then that would only add el paso and Travis County to the group of regions that could be -- counties that could be recognized as single county regions. We do have a draft I think that has already been --
>> what if we put a period after innovative in the next to last paragraph? After what do we believe? We have but feel. So to be more innovative, period; however, we believe we have, okay?
>> absolutely.
>> and I think that reads a lot bit better. We're suggesting that they bracket this to cover counties with 650,000 or more, which picks us up.
>> picks us up. And would also pick up el paso.
>> el paso wants to be picked up?
>> I don't know. This would be consistent with the recommendation that the conference of urban counties made when their staff testified.
>> okay.
>> those are the only two?
>> I wouldn't swear to it.
>> the rest of them are already in there.
>> harris is already in, dallas, tarrant...
>> absolutely, yes.
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> I?m trying to think of where are they on the 650.
>> I would think that they're under half a million.
>> is that a relevant point that this would -- that we're only one of two counties that get add on? When you talk about a bracket bill it sounds like woo, you're opening it up. And it really is allowing travis and only one other county to be inclusive.
>> I just have one question. Sherri, I?m sorry to not know the answer to this, but how comfortable are you with the bill if assuming we're successful in getting this bracket put on here so that we are a single county region, does that address a majority of the concerns that the staff has previously raised with the court? I?m concerned that we may be suggesting that this solves all our problems and I?m not sure that it does.
>> no, it doesn't. And that's why we were very specific about the language that we support the change in the population figure because there are issues that remain, especially since the committee substitute has now been withdrawn. We will probably be back once we get a new look at the bill to see because we were concerned about the separation of the authority and the service provider. It was our take that that would put potentially a private provider between the court and its mental health authority, and I don't know that that's the place we want to be. So there are other problems -- there is another -- there is a revision to the bill expected next week, I think on the 31st, is what representative Davis' office has said. But we were hoping to have this bill come forward with the change in the population bracket.
>> well, is there still opposition to the provider as opposed to the way under own now. That we have to come under the auspices if the bill may cause problems?
>> the committee substitute actually changed the language from having to separate the mental health authority and the provider. The language I think allowed for some input from the elected officials in the counties that were affected, so the bill was moving more towards something that was a little more palatable. However, because the committee substitute has now been withdrawn, we don't know if he would continue on that track. I think there was testimony supporting having the mental health authority continue to be able to provide services because several reasons in the state have very viable collaborations both with governmental and mental health services to provide -- to both the mental health authority and to provide the services. So there was strong testimony supporting that language in the committee substitute that has now been withdrawn.
>> is this the best way to go about this because I?m concerned we may have a mixed message that this is the only thing that we think is --
>> that's kind of the point I was trying to get to. I think this is a good idea. I think we ought to send this letter, but I think this isn't all we need to do. The committee substitute was withdrawn only because it wasn't going to be voted out of committee that day, so technically they have to take it back off the table. So it's likely that that substitute will be 90% or more of whatever we see next. And I had heard that they might try to vote that bill actually out of committee as early as this week. And i've also heard that they might come up with another draft and do it next week. So I?m not really certain where we stand. I also should say that the intelligence we have on the senate side is that the senate is not entirely enam mored with house bill 3470 in its current foreman -- 470 in its current form. I don't know exactly what that means, but it's possible that the bill could take a very different turn on the senate side. So I just want to remind you we still have that whole side of the legislature to continue to work on this issue with. I would recommend that representative Davis' office has been extremely open to feedback on this point, and it would seem to me very appropriate for a member of the court who might be interested to go with sherri or me or bob over and actually visit with the staff and just kind of personally reexpress some of the issues and concerns that we have. On top of sending this letter.
>> move approval of the letter with the change recommended.
>> second.
>> and I do think we ought to follow through on that and see if we can get this done. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. On the immunity bills, do we need to discuss those?
>> there are three that we could bring forward. At least one of them I think you should really put some attention to.
>> okay.
>> I?m happy to come back after lunch.
>> do you want to do it after lunch?
>> I don't know that -- do you need to come back?
>> I don't think we need to, unless john -- if there's information that you need to pass along. I think we definitely need to express our opinion about 2588, but I?m sure you're going to cover that.
>> and 2585 too. It was supposed to be on last week.
>> proposal by Commissioner Sonleitner to recess until 1:30. Seconded by Commissioner Gomez. All in favor? That passes unanimously.
let's call back to order the voting session of the Travis County Commissioners court. We were in the middle of a discussion of item no. 40, the legislative item. Mr. Davis, you have one for us to consider?
>> yes, judge. I wanted to look at house bill 2585. And maybe I can get harvey Davis also to am before us on this -- to appear before us on this particular bill. Maybe we can walk through it as fast as possible if harvey Davis can speak to it, I would appreciate his comments. Basically looking at utility rates kind of exorbitant, out of kill ther, out of -- out of kilter, out of proportion looking at utility bills and utility rates as far as water is concerned. Of course it has an impact on us so -- so anyway if harvey Davis can -- can walk through it with us.
>> good afternoon, him harvey Davis, manager for the county corporations. House bill 2585 makes two changes to the water code. First, it says that -- that water and waste utilities cannot adopt a billing cycle for retail services that is less than 30 days. And the second change it makes is that it -- it says a water utility company whose -- who owns two or more common utility systems cannot file an attempt to increase its water rates ever -- except for every five years, the current law allows them to -- to make this filing of an attempt to increase rates each year. The reason that this -- that the Commissioners court might want to take a position on this bill is that -- at the brier creek subdivisions there has been a -- numerous complaints about -- about high water rates the utility company there is aqua Texas. If you will recall brier creek is a subdivision located near manor. The principal home buyers are low income people, first time home buyers. The house is -- houses have been spelling from 90 to maybe $120,000. They have been surprised by high water utility rates. There have been several news reports about the high rates that they have been having to pay. And there have been, when I looked on the internet, about aqua Texas, there have been numerous news articles across the state about people having to pay high rates from this company. They are -- they were in excess of 4,000 -- there were in excess of 4,000 protests made to the Texas economics on environmental quality about the rates and they are in a discovery process regarding these rates, this process will take up to a year. What I have been told is that -- the company purchased water systems across the state. Some of which need a lot of -- of -- of major capital expenditures. And they have been allowed to spread that capital expenditure to all of the water systems that they own and people at brier creek, of course, are buying new homes, this is a new system and so they are having to pay higher rates to -- to help fund the repair costs of systems that are -- that are located in east Texas or west Texas or various places. And I was told that -- -- that the recovery period is four years instead of maybe 10 years or 15 years. So this is sort of the source apparently of higher rates that they are having to pay. Representative hildebrand aniated this bill, he's some kerrville. Some of the same issues from high rates from this same company. So that's the reason that I believe that he has filed this bill.
>> thank you for those explanations. I guess I also understand that this particular company may be one of the largest in the company as far as publicly traded companies. In the country. So --
>> that's right. When I looked on the internet, this -- this company is owned by aqua america, which on their website says they are the largest public utility company in america.
>> I would like to support this particular legislation sponsored by representative hildebrand to look at ways to mitigate the -- the impact that it's really having on -- on our residents here in Travis County. With those exorbitant prices on water. Rates. Especially in briarcreek and I guess other areas that are experiencing this particular impact. So --
>> sending.
>> I would like to support that.
>> second.
>> yes, sir?
>> if -- if who is actually the company --
>> the company is aqua Texas. They are a subsidiary of aqua america.
>> if they weren't furnishing the water for like the briar creek area, who would be?
>> I don't know. I think we need to know something -- you're in -- you're getting in the middle of business. I mean if there's another place to buy water, then -- it's cheaper, then people ought to buy water where it's cheaper. If you are in an area where -- where that company is providing you know that sort of infrastructure, I mean I can see where you want to stand up for your residents, but you have got to -- either private does it or public does it. Now, I don't know the -- I don't know that we're in the business to do water, I mean, but -- what would be the price difference between what -- what these people would be paying in brier creek versus somebody else that had another water bill, do you know that, harvey?
>> well, I -- we've had a couple of Travis County employees that have purchased homes at briarcreek and I did secure one of their water bills. And their water bill, this is water and wastewater bill, was $79.01. I did talk to the reporter who had done a couple of articles and she told me, when I told her that I had a bill of $79.01, she said wow that's the lowest one that I have seen, most of them have been $90 and above. And it just -- just in talking with people in our office, that -- that somebody was a Travis County -- I mean, I?m sorry, city of Austin resident, they said their wastewater base was $25. So --
>> but total bill, though, of all of that, I mean, folks are receiving those kind of water bills exceeding what I understand maybe more than $200, some of the complaints on some of the -- [multiple voices] I mean that's ridiculous. My whole point is if those rates can be looked at and regulated where you don't have to increase those rates in a certain time frame, I think that's what representative hildebrand is going to do is look at not increasing rates in a certain time frame. Of course I think it's what those folks are out there living with because I think some of those folks in that particular area are having to get assistance, down payment assistance, a whole lot of other things in Travis County. If it was me, I would definitely like to know what's going on as far as my utility is concerned and of course that being the highest ratio of anywhere else out there, well, it kind of appeared to me that there needs to be some -- some additional regulations because, of course, what representative hildebrand is experiencing, even in this county is that it needs to be more regulation of course as far as bringing some affordate, especially some of these low income areas.
>> yeah, I don't -- I mean, aqua Texas is a utility for that subdivision. I don't know how they -- how they got to be that status. I was told that -- I think they have this -- this status of ccn, where you -- where your company that --
>> yeah.
>> that patrols an area. I was told that they did not have a ccn status and so I -- I?m not sure how they were selected. I do know that the builder is actively supporting the homeowners and -- what would make sense because they are trying to do a 1200 home subdivision out there and -- in several phases. They've only completed about a fourth of it. So of course they're interested in -- in lower utility rates for home buyers.
>> who is the builder?
>> dr horton.
>> and we're to assume that dr horton had no idea what the cost of providing water and wastewater was going to be to the residents of this community?
>> I mean, I?m not against, you know, getting the best deal for folks. I don't understand enough, I mean, i'd like to have aqua Texas, i'd like to have dr horton, I would like to have somebody come over here and let's ask some of those questions, I mean, generally private there is a -- there's an explanation as to why something is more expensive. And it's pretty common -- business practice that -- that you know if you are a company that you go out and you acquire and you load up debt, I mean, what you basically try to do is defray your debt over now -- I mean, if they are all over the country, I mean, I suppose that would be interesting to see a presentation for that. But I would like to know something about you know how this thing got put into existence. I?m liable come down on them with Commissioner Davis and representative hildebrand but generally business does not just go out and just beat your brains out without having the -- especially if you have got something like a utility where you probably do have some sort of regulatory agency that has the ability to come in and do something I mean if you ever taking advantage of people, but I would like to have an explanation or some sort of a presentation about aqua Texas as to what they are doing, I would like to ask some questions of them. Just say --
>> I feel real uncomfortable getting involved in this because the -- I think the fight appropriately is over at tceq and there's a hearing scheduled and golly it takes too long unfortunately that's the way it is. I think we have all learned some pretty serious lessons from our friends up in north ridge sometimes these water and wastewater systems are in -- in a condition of total disrepair so it would -- those folks were shocked, too, in terms of what it was going to cost to upgrade that system. If you have a company that is -- has acquired all of these other similarly situated water systems, it's going to take a lot of money to upgrade those kinds of things. I just feel like the dispute ought to appropriately be over at tceq and if I get called in on this one, how many others are we going to be asked to referee on where I don't have like I have enough information about whether --
>> I don't know either.
>> they may be the bad guys, but I don't know enough to know that we ought to be getting involved in this.
>> can we have a -- can we ask them to come over, Commissioner Davis, would you be interested in having a presentation by aqua Texas to see what's going on?
>> I would like to know exactly staff -- can you tell me what the status is as far as the bill at this time, has there been any movement or activity? Tom I would like to ask some questions.
>> let me talk with -- with representative hildebrand's office, when we talked with their office, they told me that the bill is in the natural resources committee. It is a -- he is a committee, a member of that committee. He is very interested in moving the bill. They were very enthusiastic about trying to get this bill passed. It was -- they told me it was a high priority of his. And they were interested that -- that Travis County, you know, was considering this bill. So that's -- that's as far as I know is it's status at this time.
>> well --
>> I have not -- and to answer your question, I have not talked to the aqua Texas people. I have -- I have informed some people at d.r. Horton just that we were aware of this article, but I haven't talked to them about issues like how did aqua Texas become the utility out there, were they selected or -- or that kind of information.
>> something just doesn't seem to add up. I mean, generally, I mean, d.r. Horton is -- is a very large and sophisticated builder. I mean somebody had to have -- for them to say all of a sudden we're going to get on the side of you guys are charging us too much, they are going to have a hard time convincing me they didn't have some sort of an idea going into this that the utility was going to have to, I mean, that it might be more expensive so -- but maybe they have a real good explanation. All I?m asking is between d.r. Horton and aqua Texas, I would like to have, you know, them come in and talk to us about this because too often what I find out -- when I find out about things like this, I go well oh, had I known that, then I might have had a different opinion or I might not have raised my hand as quickly. You know, these are the kind of things that seemingly, you know, there are people being people taken advantage of, if that's the case I?m with Commissioner Davis, let's not have that be the case. But there may be some -- some big time justification. It may be one of those things if aqua Texas says you know what, you don't have to provide it. The next person provides it may be --
>> back on next week and see what happens.
>> out of courtesy, judge, if you don't mind me [indiscernible] a second on this motion, I would bring it back next week with the intent of having Texas -- harvey can you get in touch with those folks, aqua Texas, also d.r. Horton, of course those residents that are being impacted out there. Some of those folks may have even participated in the Travis County loan assistance program. Of course that whole division, whole subdivision was predicated on medium to low income assistance to live out there. In single family dwellings. That impact on them kind of poses a problem. Tom, let me ask you one question. In the bill itself, just basically saying they are going to look at it, review it, look at a way of looking at this in a five-year period. In other words where they can't adjust the rates. It appears that the rate that's been -- that's been disposed and harnessed on ratepayers is because of other infrastructural costs that -- that being -- being borne by the utility out of the area where they are actually doing the business. So is that -- tom, my question to you is that -- is that five-year time frame, is that within the realm of what they are supporting, is that something that Travis County can do as far as those kind of concerns because from -- I?m hearing that we don't have an intervention, but I think that shouldn't preclude us from supporting or not supporting the bill. What we are doing with tceq or anybody else.
>> whether you support the legislation or not is a political issue, not a legal issue. I can't really speak to that. But all the bill says is that -- that utility can raise its rates only once every five years.
>> five years, right. Basically what it does.
>> which would be apparently some kind of cure because these bills, what's happening is that these bills, according to sources are being randomly raised. That's what I?m understanding. In other words at the discretion of -- doing it, there's no checks and balances on it. So this is -- this is a horrible situation over there. Of course that's not good for anybody. Travis County --
>> I don't mind you --
>> putting it on next week.
>> I don't mind yielding to your request, I yield to your request. [multiple voices] next week, we will do that.
>> I will do --
>> thank you.
>> I will do my best.
>> we'll try, thanks.
>> you're welcome.
>> next. > next bill. Is that all?
>> I?m ready to talk about the sovereign immunity bills if you are ready for them. There's three of them that I would like to discuss with you. The worst of which, perhaps the one of most concern, to us is 25 -- hb 2588 by van arsdale. I talked with the legislative consultants this morning they cannot figure why this bill is -- is out there with the volume of concern, especially by municipalities against this bill. That they are not even sure that it can be salvaged. What it does is completely gut the Texas tort claims act. We have been working with the tort claims act for many, many years, you all are very familiar with it and the concepts of sovereign immunity that it has in there that still exist. This -- this, what it purports to do is completely remove sovereign immunity, you would be completely exposed. Takes off the limitations of the $100,000 per person and $300,000 per occurrence that you are very familiar with. It just removes it. It doesn't raise it, just removes it. So you would be looking a great deal like instead of being the Commissioners court you would be like a board of directors of any large corporation that could be sued for just about anything. So we cannot -- eric shepherd is down here quaking, thinking I can't handle that much litigation if that's what's. If this bill passes.
>> do you have any sense of what triggered this? All that I can think of what chris was saying is that he may have had some wording problems in drafting it. Perhaps what he was trying to do is to -- to have a cleanup language in which -- saying that in those situations that are described normally that you can sue for, he wanted to make sure that you really can sue for them. The sovereign immunity wouldn't block a normal lawsuit in the kinds of situations that are described in the tort claims act. But with some -- with some perhaps faulty wording like using words notwithstanding any other law, that kind of sets everything else aside. And it makes it appear like any individual could sue for anything.
>> that seem to be contrary to where the state lege was heading, seems like more and more caps, not free for all. Has anyone had conversation with his office to wig out the obvious?
>> it's something that chris was prepared to do if the Commissioners court directed him to do. So --
>> [indiscernible] position.
>> our office normally does not make recommendations, but eric would probably insist that I try to do one, that it's just a bill that your consultant says needs to be killed.
>> move we officially oppose this bill.
>> second.
>> 2588. Discussion in all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> the next two bills are both sponsored by representative nixon, h.b. 2990 is one that may look very familiar to it because it's basically the battle that we had two years ago. It is one where representative nixon is taking all of the provisions that we agreed to, almost all of the provisions that the county agreed to allow occur in -- in a waiver of sovereign immunity to some extent on architectural engineering and construction cases, they are taking it to the next level to all other political subdivisions. In most cases the counties are exempted under this bill because we already agreed to them two years ago. Where the problem comes in is a little phrase in section 2 that says sovereign immunity is waived and abolished for a county and that's not what we agreed to two years ago. That phrase was -- was taken out of the bill and now it's coming back in the back door two years later. It's something that perhaps could be looked upon as maybe that's what the law already says. It's in discussions with eric he feels like that completely takes away any arguments that you have to -- to perhaps defend yourself in any lawsuit in one of those situations. I guess it's more of a -- rather than a legal discussion, it's more of a -- it was just that's not the deal that we cut two years ago. We want to come back and try to put the language back in.
>> what's the status of this bill?
>> it's been assigned to a committee. I don't think it's moving yet.
>> so if we were to call to representative nixon's attention our agreement and ask them if -- if -- if this is not consistent with it woorks that be inappropriate.
>> that would be a healthy first start.
>> second.
>> move that we oppose the bill on the ground that it violates our agreement with representative dixon that we -- nixon that we call that to his attention and ask for appropriate action. Discussion? Use Commissioner Sonleitner's name, that way we [laughter] it will get it done. All in favor? That passes unanimously. The last bill is 2039 also by nixon and again it looks on its face to be rather harmless. In that -- that the counties are exempted. Again it's -- it's similar type of bill that it picks up where two years ago the deals of the county -- the deals that the county is made, that would include all of the other political subdivisions. In this bill it adds a dispute resolution process which on its face looks okay, but it also -- it -- it leaves the -- the door open for all contracts rather than just what we agreed to. The architectural construction and engineering contract. Again, counties are exempted but if this passes, this time, you could expect will be having to address it two years from now. That nixon will say, well, everybody else agreed to this two years ago, why don't you all come along with what everybody else agreed to. So it's just a broader sweep of the brush than what we agreed to two years ago. So its face it looks like one you might want to sit back and watch, see how things go. Behind the scenes you might want to be expressing to all of the other folks like hospital districts, which this will impact, that this is when you might want to -- one you might want to take a close look at.
>> do you want to have the same conversation about this bill that we had about the previous one?
>> to bring it back in line with what the agreement might have been two years ago.
>> that's my motion.
>> second.
>> discussion? And if -- I guess we tried have those conversations this week and have it back on next week or have these back on next week. All right. And if, you know, last time we almost did a state-wide [indiscernible] I assume the same county officials may be interested if we let them know what's going on. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Anything else today under legislation? Then that does it for item no. 40. We'll have that back on next week. Thank you all very much. And Commissioner Davis this is the -- 470, mental health bill, we voted this morning in a letter to the sponsor.
>> okay. Thank you.
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 23, 2005 10:22 AM