Travis County Commissioners Court
April 12, 2005
Item 37
37, legislative action on proposed bills before the 79th Texas legislature. 37. Consider and take appropriate action on legislative issues and proposed bills before the 79th Texas legislature.
>> mr. Trimble is bold enough to be first.
>> last week, we had brought forth for your consideration hb 420 by naishtat. Which would allow the provision of tanf and food stamp benefits to persons with a prior felony drug conviction. Also get the right number, hb 967 by hag hard tee, to except identification cards --
>> one at take time, can we do that.
>> sure.
>> 420 was the county --
>> provision of tanf and food stamp benefits.
>> we did hot have a substantial number of people here on that last time anyway. I have seen our policy still in place where at least four members in the court must support or oppose for us to take action. It seemed to me that ex-offender status carries a whole lot of negative things that hold you back. I think you should need all of the help that you can get until you get a job. If we expect you to get a job and become self sufficiently, it's hard to do that without food and some of the other basic necessities, which is what we realize I think with the state jail and in working with the social services agencies over the years. That's why I think we ought to support 420 myself.
>> my motion is to support it. Seconded by Commissioner Gomez. Any more discussion? No discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. 967.
>> it 967 by haggerty, this bill will have the net effect of causing the Texas department of public safety to accept identification cards issued by the Texas department of criminal justice as a valid form of identification as people apply for state identification cards or driver's license and right now that's not the case. What this bill would do would work on improving the process of verifying the identification of people for the tdcj card and then having d.p.s. Accept that card so people can get their identification quickly.
>> also helps constables find people.
>> if there are other reasons why they should not be issued dps can --
>> yeah.
>> certainly they pretty much know who is in their custody. We may not know what the driver's license means, but we sure do know what the -- dcj card means.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you. Who's next? Good norpg, shalen walker. Travis County transportation and natural resources department. We have one bill to bring forward, two bills actually, house bill 2758 by representative bone man and senate bill 1542 by senator armbrister which would from our assist. Of the bills make it more difficult for Travis County to participate in contested hearings. On applications before tceq, these are all applications. Both these bills have had hearings in committee and have been left pending and I don't know if the county attorney's office wants to add any -- any remarks to that. Summary of the bills.
>> judge, how can we be more proactive with this? I mean, it's kind of hard to say that we can go over and visit with them to make it, to keep the process open to the public. Without opposing it.
>> what's the number again?
>> 2758.
>> I mean this closes the process to the public.
>> yeah.
>> and that's not what we want. But you know how can we let them know in a positive way that they should keep the process open?
>> well, you know the fact that -- we've seen a whole bunch of these during a lot of the process as far as dealing with the tceq on a lot of different things here in Travis County alone. You know, of course, I don't know if -- i've already submitted a letter in opposition. To -- to these particular bills.
>> well, I guess my question is do we oppose it or do we -- what's more helpful to oppose it or just --
>> I think it would be more helpful myself for us to -- to send over specific cases before tceq where we found it necessary for us to intervene on behalf of Travis County residents. Highlight those. Highlight why we think it was important for us to have input. Some we won, some we lost. But I do think that we ought to conclude by saying if we think this closes out the public inappropriately, that we ought to say that.
>> okay.
>> that's something judge that -- with the caveat that -- that I would like for the Travis County delegation to also be alerted to the opposition because a lot of the things that we have discussed.
>> we can copy them.
>> you know, we can go on and on and on as far as some of the things that we have had come before this court as far as contested case hearings. And I don't -- not only identify them, but also allow the Travis County delegation to be a part of this because as we have gone through it we haven't involved -- we have involved them on local issues as, you know, that would override those things that we have done in the past.
>> in the background we basically make the case for why we don't think it's important anyway, right?
>> right.
>> for the memo, yes, sir.
>> I would include those in the letter.
>> actually, I can't tell, it's got here at least on nor armbrister's version of this, it was scheduled for a public hearing at natural resources on the fifth. Of that the same day that many of us were over at that same committee on the bcp bill. Was it left pending, what was -- it doesn't have here what the status it?
>> s that not -- that's not up to date. Actually didn't get a hearing that day, was rescheduled for today. It is -- it is --
>> senator barrientos is on this committee, that is also in terms of somebody to have conversations with.
>> motion to send -- to send the letter from the Commissioners court to the bill sponsor? Through the committee? Travis County legislative delegation?
>> yes.
>> seconded.
>> seconded by Commissioner Davis. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. So that was two bills, right? The house and senate version?
>> right.
>> then the only other thing that we -- t.n.r. Thought you might want is an update on a couple bills that you considered previously. Tom nuckols has been working with the sponsors of several land use bills, we wanted to give you an update and tom is going to do that.
>> um ... There were two bills dealing with the grandfathering issue on chapter 245 under the local government code. There was senate bill 574 and house bill 2748. And the good news there is I think the substitute for senate bill 574 is basically something we can accept and live with. The house version is still different than that. So I guess the position we would suggest at this point is support the committee's substitute for 574 and hope that the house passes it as it reads over in the senate.
>> real briefly, I mean --
>> that was the one, the main objection there was that -- that they had taken away the -- the grandfathering -- the exception to grandfathering for fees so that a project took a number of years that in the later stages when they filed their final applications, they would only be having to pay the fees that were nefng, on the very -- in effect on the very first application, that would basically mean the county would be subsidizing the review. Our approach is you pay the cost of the review and for a long-term project, you know, as the fees increase, they need to be subject to those new fees. That part got taken out of the bill. So that was the main objection. The other one is there was a waiver of sovereign immunity in there, theycal phied it was only immunity from suit, they explained it was only specifically in there, some of the local governments around the metro plex had been sued over it, invoked sovereign immune tie. Frankly in discussing it with the lit gators at the county attorney's office, there's -- there's other statutes that they can sue under so we think waiving sovereign immunity to suit under chapter 245 is sort of a no harm, no foul thing. We will still retain sovereign immunity from liability. That one I don't think it's worth objecting to.
>> tom what happens to -- just so -- if the court decides to accept the substitute for senate bills 574 and house bill version of that language is 2748 does not change. What status does that put us in with that variation?
>> well, you know, if the house passes it without the changes that we got over in the senate, it will go to conference committee. But I think at that point it would still be important for you all to say to -- to all of the members involved, we prefer the senate version. It would help the conference committee comes out, realize that.
>> support that.
>> okay.
>> well, as -- as -- bob, do you think that picket would have any big issue with that, since 2748 is his?
>> I don't know.
>> come up so folks can hear what you're saying.
>> is the question what will happen if the two versions of the bill are different? Is that -- that is the question?
>> [multiple voices]
>> my question to you was if we were to go to pickett and say what armbrister's bill is that we, given that it's change, it's only practical we would be asking if something is a lengthy process, that we are not just arbitrarily trying to get in somebody's pocket, but they are really, truly, hey, after two years or something, they are different costs and nobody is trying to stick it to anybody. But I mean you -- I mean I think that pickett, all that I have visited with him over, he seems like a pretty reasonable sort.
>> yeah.
>> do you have any input, that was my question to you.
>> well, yeah. We had visited with senator armbrister, they agreed to do that. I don't know if the plan on this is that they are going to do whatever the senate does. It just depends. We haven't talked with the pickett's office to follow through on that but we'll find out. I suspect that that was part of an agreement that's going to follow through over to the house.
>> good.
>> but we can confirm that.
>> okay.
>> yeah. If they didn't, as tom said, it would go to a conference committee, then they would have to work out the differences, but I suspect that that's a change that he's going to be willing to accept from what we've heard so far. But we need to go visit directly.
>> thanks.
>> the other grandfathering bills were senate bill 848, house companion, house bill 1704, if you are recall the issue on this one was it basically allowed a development to be grandfathered if the developer filed an application that gave the local government quote unquote fair notice of what the project is. However there was no definition of fair notice. We went over and testified and suggested this substantive completeness idea and actually gave them language on that. However it passed out of committee without that language and still without any definition of fair notice. And I think the issue there is that's really not going to solve the ongoing wars over grandfathering. You are really just going to have a lot more litigation and that litigation is likely to involve local governments that are thinking about adopting or amending new rules, which is y'all. So I think the position to take on that one is this just sort of opens up a new round in the battle and the lawsuit instead of being over the old language will be over some new language that's added this session. So -- so the fair notice language is the issue, now I have seen language floating out there that addresses that issue. In a way I think the county could live with. But the bill came out of committee without that language in it and I have yet to get an update from anybody on exactly what's going on with that. I've called some of the other local government entities involved in the process and just haven't heard back from them.
>> do we know whether tac and/or cuc have taken positions on this.
>> they have testified against the bill. There's a lot of opposition to these bills, there was a lot of testimony in both senate and house against the bills. The bills made it out of both the senate and house committee however. So there was testimony that Travis County was one of the target of this bill. At this point in you are able to talk to any of the legislative delegation. The bill is actually on the floor today in the senate. Senate bill 848, it will be on the floor in the house tomorrow. 1704.
>> 1704 or 868? 848 is on the floor of the senate today. And 1704 is on the floor of the house tomorrow.
>> will with, I hadn't heard anything about 848. Do we need to get word to our legislative delegation -- [multiple voices] contact their legislation delegation.
>> I think it would be a prudent move.
>> I don't remember that the Travis County vote on 848 before.
>> it's the companion bill of 1704, same bill.
>> we voted to oppose it?
>> I think we did.
>> you voted -- your vote was to push this substantive completeness definition of fair notice. We -- is that my motion now is to push that and also to oppose until the change is made.
>> second.
>> do we have time to do that?
>> yeah.
>> and to get something in writing, send that to our legislative delegation, today really. Back in cuc -- urge other -- urge tac and cuc to contact their delegation members immediately.
>> they are sending e-mails to all of the counties to have all of their members of the court to go down and let the authors know.
>> who is composing that letter?
>> we will.
>> thank you. We will put in the letter, too, to support any amendments to the floor to make the bill better.
>> we ought to oppose it off the bat and then say unless the following changes are made, which we have already shared with the sponsor and then that's the same letter that we sent before, right?
>> the bottom line is have a reasonable definition of fair notice. Without the reasonable definition of fair notice, there's just going to be another, you know, five or six years of litigation.
>> that sounds reasonable to me.
>> okay. Was that motion seconded, any more discussion?
>> I want to ask. Is this also tied up in 1704, all of the stuff concerning the interim rules. Does that -- -- there is a different bill? What's the bill going through over there because it came about because of the interim rules? And the impervious cover --
>> the next one.
>> that's the neck one. Okay. I didn't know how much play that would have, because it does have some play in it, but I understand your motion.
>> what I can't understand though is if that's so much opposition this this, why having so much movement? If I?m hearing everything right -- a lot of opposition to it I mean from everyone.
>> because the opposition --
>> why is this thing moving to readily.
>> that's right. In -- Commissioner, because the opposition that you hear is from local and quite frankly there are some things that -- that this local community does as a reaction to -- to a -- to a small majority of people that are very outspoken that take and put people landowners and developers in a spot where they don't want to be. So the -- so the loudness and the -- I mean my interpretation of this, is that -- is that, hey, if you had this kind of hearing in dallas or if you had this kind of hearing, I mean, in bonham, Texas or whatever, you probably wouldn't have the opposition, but you start talking about these kind of things in Travis County, Austin, then you bet.
>> let me be clear, the bill wasn't only aimed at us. There was testimony issues in our county, the city of Round Rock testified against it, plano, mesquite, san antonio, the saws, Texas urban counties and there's a -- a list that I will be happy to pass around.
>> what were the opposition of those other entities that you just stated.
>> basically this radically changes the grandfathering clause to basically allow any developer to just -- all they have to do is sent in a certified letter saying here's what I want to develop, they are grandfathering, no engineering data, none of the normal pieces of information that we require to actually review an application, that's the issue is have they given us information information to actually review the application to see if it's feasible. [indiscernible]
>> that's what this language would do, yes.
>> that's one possible interpretation of that bill.
>> right.
>> unless you define what fair notice is.
>> yeah, right. Unless you define what fair notice is, somebody is going to litigate that indication, it may be yoou. That's why it's crucial, seems good public policy to put in the statute what the legislature intends by fair notice.
>> which is not defined. I just want to make sure that --
>> all in favor of the motion. Let's pass it by unanimous note. Motion to oppose. That's 848.
>> the last one is house bill 2833, it's companion senate bill 1747, this is the bill take amends the taking statute, when this first came up you all authorized us to go talk to the staff for the consequence spores and lay out our -- sponsors and lay out our specific concerns with the bill. That meeting occurred Friday. Really laid out five issues, in the big picture, again, this is one of those cases where there has been a backlash against perceived abuses to -- perceived in zoning back door zoning type of activities. And, you know, the push back is -- is so drastic that I look at this and I think it puts you back in a position presenate bill 873. I mean this not only would -- would limit what you can do in the senate bill 873, I think this is going to affect the regulations that you currently have in effect today on things like road -- right-of-way widths and requiring simple drainage facilities to prevent downstream flooding, so on. The reason that I say that is because the way things normally work is regulations sort of say what you have to do and what land you have to set aside and the developer gets to build on what's left. So you say you have to dedicate your floodplain, you have to provide x number of feet of right-of-way, you have got to build a storm water detention pond and then you get to build on what's left regardless. Of course in Travis County, since we don't have any density limit, they can go to 100% on what's left. This flips it around, basically guarantees the landowner 45% impervious cover on his tract and with whatever is left over, then you get to set aside your right-of-way, build your drainage pond and so on. So I think on a big tract of land probably not a problem. But I think that you will find smaller tract of land, because of various constraints. Once the builder designated his 45%, there may not be any room left over for a right-of-way or for a storm water detention pond and the way the bill works, in that case, if Travis County wants him to build an adequately sized drainage pond so that he didn't flood down stream, we would basically have to pay the landowner to do that. That's the only option that the bill gives you. So in some cases even with your current regulations without adopting anything new under senate bill 873, you would have to let them bill an under sized detention pond or have Travis County pay for the detention pond. I laid out -- I laid that scenario out to the staff and they said certainly, we don't want unintended consequences and they invited us to give them language on that point. The second point was under the current takings act, the real key to the bill is all of the exceptions. I remember discussing this with you all when we were working on the interim rules. And there's a number of exceptions that say if a local government is operating in this area or regulating for this purpose, they are just not subject to the act. The way the act is -- has worked since it was passed in '95, you know the courts have broadly construed the exceptions. This bill basically as the -- has the practical effect of taking the exceptions away because the bill qualified it in a way that like I said as a practical matter, I think takes them away. We laid that issue out and again they said we don't want unintended consequences, invited us to give them language on that one. The third issue was you can also read the statute to say if regulations or a taking as to any one tract of land, you have to repeal the whole regulation regardless of it doesn't have that effect on any other tract in the cat. Our suggestion -- in county. Our suggestion was at least make it clear in the statute if the regulation are taking a particular tract of land, one option the county has I just give that landowner a variance because there's no reason to repeal the regulation outright if it can still be applied to the other tracts of land in the county without it being a taking, that outing to be allowed to stand were again they welcome language on that issue.
>> when you say they welcome language, do we think --
>> I have no idea if they will accept.
>> if they will substitute it.
>> they said we will consider your language. So ... We committed to give them language. If you all authorize us to.
>> okay.
>> the other issue was -- was the -- was the idea of density limits. Where the discussion headed on that was what are the exceptions in the statute today as for onsite sewage facility regulations. And they -- in the substitute that came out of the house committee they reinstated that exception and we started talking about the idea of, well, you know, under on site sewage facility regulations you have density restrictions. And nobody really complains about those. The reason nobody complains about them is because they are valid water quality pollution prevention regulations and they have to be approved by tceq. So if there are other forms of density regulations, lot size, impervious cover or whatever, perhaps the happy medium everybody can live with is if they pass muster at tceq and tceq finds that they are valid for pollution prevention and not some sort of back door zoning, maybe that's something that everybody can live with. And I would say by the reaction of the staff that they didn't really commit to consider that or not. But it was an idea that they talked a lot about and I would say it was intriguing to them. So that's one possibility.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...it's really sort of a separation of powers issue. It basically puts the judiciary in the position of either blocking or at least delaying your decision on what rules to adopt. The better way -- the way it always worked is the cawrts have -- courts have basically said we're going to wait and see what the rules are so they have something to react to.
>> this has already been reported out or substituted?
>> out of the house committee, yes.
>> okay.
>> and conference of urban counties was in the meeting with us Friday afternoon, so our suggestion was going to be authorize us to work with the conference of urban counties on these issues.
>> so move.
>> second.
>> motion is to authorize staff to work with the conference of urban counties on these issues.
>> and I would also suggest that we contact the representatives for the landowners who are advocating for this bill and open up the dialogue directly with them.
>> this would not be against -- we would not be voting against the bill?
>> no. This is a let's try to cooperate, collaborate and work through these issues.
>> and I think we should because this is exactly what these people have been driven to, and that's exactly what we need to be doing is sitting down and reasonably dealing with them because if we don't, I think that they have to go over and do some things that could be pretty damaging to us. And I certainly don't want that, but I certainly want it heard loud and clear that these landowners need to be dealt fairly with. So I?m certainly willing to work with them since it's not a vote against 2833, I?m fine to go and talk to people.
>> that includes talking with all interested and affected Travis County residents.
>> discussion?
>> one point, judge. Is any other urban -- I know you'll be working with the council of urban counties, but is any particular one of those urban counties taken the issue of taking a position separate and distinct from working with the council of urban counties.
>> I don't believe so.
>> so everybody -- not that we're aware of at this time?
>> I?m not aware of any.
>> okay. So just want to make sure that we're not just Travis County, I want to make sure of that.
>> it surprises me that there's any -- (indiscernible).
>> quiet in this room too.
>> counties.
>> counties working on these issues?
>> cuc testified against the bill in the house, and I know the bill came up rather quickly, so I would suspect that most counties really hadn't reacted to the bill yet.
>> let's try the peace pipe earlier. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank you. Next.
>> one other little county liability type deal. Going the other way this time, hb 2989 offered by representative nixon would take away the ability for counties to have a lengthier period to file a lawsuit against an individual or a corporation than others. Most corporations, entities, folks have a statute of limitations you've got to file within one year, two years or four years depending upon a certain action that you're going to be taking. This would require counties to also have to comply with that requirement.
>> what's the requirement now?
>> that you have to file your action, which doesn't happen very often, but I can think of one particular case where we were in extensive negotiations and he went beyond the four-year period for a contracted action on a statute of limitations. You have to file within four years on a particular case I?m remembering. If you don't file your lawsuit within a certain amount of time, then you can't. That rule has never applied to a county before, and so representative nixon's bill is saying, I want all counties to stay and any other political subdivision to have to comply with the statute from now on. The universities are all going crazy over this bill. I don't think the counties have figured it out yet. We've just heard about it recently. To summarize, it would just mean that we would really have to be aggressive in filing lawsuits, if we're going to be following through with some actions.
>> under those four years, is each year 365 days?
>> yes, sir. [ laughter ]
>> that's a long time, isn't it?
>> the one years and two years are perhaps the more threatening, forcible entry detainer suits, declaring actions, vital actions, title suits. Four years does seem like a long amount of time. And that's one where I?m not sure that I would want to be out there leading the charge against this bill. I'd like to be behind the scenes. It's already out of committee, it's in calendars in the house. I would rather try to encourage some of the other entities out there, like the universities, to go after it and push this one --
>> are we able to come up with real problems that might result?
>> it rarely happens. I could think of these cases once or twice a year where a case might come up. Most of the cases that y'all are familiar with, the forfeiture cases, workman's comp cases, they already have statute of limitations that we're already complying with.
>> it very rarely comes up, then can you just monitor and have others be the lead on this one?
>> there may be some things we ought to know, though.
>> i've been in briefing, so we can't respond. Why we started ours?
>> was this another matter?
>> he's got the next bill.
>> can we just monitor that?
>> yes, sir.
>> and for the other counties, stand behind the other counties.
>> let them take this rap.
>> any objection to that?
>> no.
>> yes, sir?
>> judge, we've been asked to present some information to you regarding house bill 3071 by goodman. And that was the bill towards -- that was identified a few weeks ago and briefed to the court on the impact it would have to our ability to continue to collect attorney's fees under a delinquent tax program as currently written. And the court asked us to get with the lobbyists -- with a representative for the county and representative goodman's office to see if we can work to collect what comes from that bill. And I?m happy to say that the work with bob cam and his associates that the nuclear mess of that bill has been removed. They removed the section 16. There's a lesser issue with it that we just want to brief you on and hopefully we'll be able too deal with that now. There's another section of the bill which would have a financial impact on the current program. We estimate in some respects almost 100,000 out of the three million in attorneys' fees. It centers not on the general tax suits, but on tax awards. We don't think that owe I think in my reading of it, I think the reason it's there is remember this bill is a delinquent tax cleanup bill and most of the state is under the private attorney process, so when they write these cleanups, they're only thinking about that percentage of the programs out there. They're not thinking about Travis County, so they refer to specific sections and certain language always talks about contract with a private lawyer. So we always have to come back and say, don't forget us. There's a section 13 of the bill where they're trying to clean up and make clear the right for these private firms to get their attorney's fees on tax warrants. Everyone has been doing it, but there's an opportunity here to make it clear under the law so no one can argue that they don't have the right to do that. And in cleaning that up, they have done a great job cleaning it up for them, but it almost makes our argument worse that we can do it because they've cleaned it up for the private lawyers, but they haven't cleaned it up for the government programs. So we're sharing the language with our legislative liaison and we're hoping we can get to representative goodman and point out if you add this sentence it remembers us too and we can be all right with it. So at this point all we wanted to do was brief you on it, tell you there's still an issue. It's less severe than the main threat we had earlier, but we want to continue trying to fix it. We may come back to you saying that we have a problem with it later if we're not successful getting the sentence added to the bill.
>> it doesn't look like work we've done already on section 16. It was really unintended consequences. I?m not seeing any kind of evil conspiracy here, it's just unintended consequences of -- kind of like what we had to do with the hospital district. Until we had our hospital district, whe to say we're kind of sort of like that, we're a look alike, so please don't forget brackenridge hospital.
>> we're unique.
>> we're unique.
>> that was it.
>> let's monitor that. Further action if we need to.
>> thank y'all.
>> thank y'all.
>> judge?
>> just to update everybody, we got a notice from bob cam about the elections bill that we've got a great deal of interest in raising the cap. I visited with dana earlier during the meeting. We basically spend all her quality time over with elections, so she'll be there tomorrow related to raising the cap on election precincts, and I committed that I would also continue on with that, get with the governor's office on that.
>> is it there a hearing tomorrow?
>> yes.
>> 2:00 o'clock. Or uponadjournment. We can notify your office if you're interesting in testifying.
>> yeah. If i've got time I would like to.
>> this is a very polished draft from the court relating to revenue caps.
>> okay. Is this consistent with what -- with previous votes we've taken?
>> yeah.
>> thank you, thank you, thank you.
>> the appraisal cap bill is up today, and they adjourned at lunch just before us, so they're going to take that up after lunch. That's a constitutional amendment. The revenue cap bill, three percent, going to be up tomorrow. I sent a letter to all of our delegation yesterday because I thought we needed to get something out. If y'all send your letter, this judge is put on the war paint day for the revenue caps. The other thing is that people who are involved in the programs that we provide probably ought to contact their legislative delegation and express their interest in these revenue cap bills. It's a serious thing just for the public to know. Again, we did analysis, and anything that reduces that roll back rate under 8 will have serious ramifications -- certainly not every year. Hardly ever had we had to go to that. But the kind of years we've had this is when we're opening new jail facilities, new juvenile detention facilities, having to add new courts. And just thinking, because i've been here so long, the last -- when we had those problems is when the state quit taking their prisoners, starting backing them up on us, our jail population also started getting better. Remember those days? We were putting people out in tents. We had to sue the state of Texas so they paid for leaving their prisoners in our jail. And at that time the only thing we could do was raise property taxes to take care of it because that's the revenue source the state has given us to pay for that. The state is running out of general beds now, so you can kind of see this heating up again. It's a serious issue because what it does is if you have to pay for those services, it squeezes out everything else. So there are organizations that ought to be interested in this besides us. And elected officials here should be interested, but this is the time to notify our delegation and give them a very strong message. On the senate side, the amendment to senate bill 18 put the new property back in. The provisions that have changed, I sent you a notice of that, is that we would have to advertise that anything over the effective rate. Y'all have never disagreed with that, so that was something that we thought was all right. And that after the eight percent rollback, there would be an automatic election rather than people having to petition. We had talked that they could live with that. That's the amended part of senate bill 18. Theoretically that may come out of the committee today. With those amendments. Those amendments, the way it was right then, were things that we had discussed that we in Travis County could in fact live with.
>> those two changes look fine to me.
>> I thought they were.
>> it would go over the effective tax rate.
>> right, we've never had a problem with that.
>> do we need a motion related to this letter that's in front of us related to --
>> I think so.
>> I move approval of the letter related to revenue caps.
>> discussion?
>> yeah, judge. How do you tell a citizen in this community that you are opposed to appraisals being so high? It's easy to say, we've only got one source of revenue and it's ad valorem.
>> the appraisal cap, we have not taken a hard stance on that. If you don't want to take one, don't. But to be very frank, it's the kind of thing that sells, Commissioner. All it does is under the effective tax rate in the state of Texas, when you cap the properties that are growing more quickly, and in this case over five percent, the taxes that they would have paid under the effective rate are pushed down to the properties that are not increasing. So it has been touted as saving people money. It saves those people whose property is appreciating more quickly at the expense of the people whose property is not. And so it is -- like we have sort of said is that it's not a money bill for the county. What it is is it's a policy as to who pays. And the appraisal cap now is 10%. This brings it down to five. So that's really the issue. It isn't a matter of is there more or less money for government services. It is simply who pays that. And the issue is not simple, but the catch word out there is appraisal creep. The reality is the effective tax rate law that is in effect right now prevents appraisal creep for the roll as a whole at the effective tax rate. What this does is there is movement within the roll as to who pays. So it is a complex argument. If your property is appraising at 10, 15, 20%, you will benefit from this. If your property is not, you will pay more taxes under it at the effective rate.
>> I think, susan, that it's one of those -- it's the same issue kind of that what happened with toll roads, and is it a free road, has it already been paid for? The basic public doesn't really understand. The only thing they understand is -- because you can ask a person in a low income area, you can ask a person in Barton Creek, are you happy with your appraisal? Well, no. I mean, my appraisals are killing me. So maybe it's something that we ought to try to use ever bit of our power to go to the statesman. And I think susan that you articulate it really well where something in the paper can be written so the person can read something and really understand what we're talking about because it sells. I mean, appraisal cap is one of these things, sign me up and you're an elected official and you're not going to vote for that.
>> the statesman actually has taken a stance against the appraisal caps.
>> they have?
>> they have. In large part because it's an artificial manipulation of property. And especially when you have a neighborhood, mine being one of them, where you literally have half of it's rental, half of it's homesteads, you have literally a situation where my next door neighbors are going to have to pay through the roof because they don't have the benefits of any kind of a cap. And this just makes it that much more severe. And it gets shifted over to residential rental properties. It's just unfair that two houses literally side by side may be paying more for the exact same services from their government. And the revenue cap argument, Commissioner, is the state owe people have an idea of how big government ought to be. It's an honest difference in philosophy. But no matter what your philosophy is in that, it seems to me that the fair, straightforward, responsible thing is if you want government to be smaller, if you believe that, you ought to get those services out there that you want cut. Get them out there, get a vote, cut them. The legislature is not doing that. What they're saying is we want to cut taxes, and by the way, the property taxes, what we've given to you to pay for services, and those cuts, we'll let you worry about those. To me it's a disingenuous stance because they want to get credit for a tax cut, but they want you to take responsibility for the services instead of them. I think if they want to cut, they ought to step out and do that. I mean, everyone wants to pay less taxes. I want to pay less taxes. That's easy. What is not easy is what services you don't want any more. And that's what we're not hearing, what services do they not want any more. And so it puts you in a very -- it puts you in the contentious position because it looks like they're the good guys. They want to cut taxes. It makes you look like you're the bad guys because we're defending the services here. But there needs to be a mesh. And I think, as I said, the honest thing is those that believe that government ought to be small ought to step forward with specific proposals in how that ought to be cut. And it's not -- it's not happening.
>> what was your quote from the Austin chronicle, something to the effect that appraisal caps are slow death? Nd revenue caps are quick death.
>> that was (indiscernible) tax. If you're not comfortable with the appraisal caps, don't put that in your letter. This is revenue caps.
>> motion on the letter. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> and as to the two changes in the substitute language, that's separate, right? The letter regarding the substitute language, and 18, agreement on that motion to approve.
>> sec.
>> that language change. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote also. Anything else today? Come quickly.
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> okay. Do you that?
>> yes -- [inaudible - no mic].
>> with respect to the two bills that we're talking about, one of them -- well, hb 930, I believe that's the one requiring eight percent of the county general revenue or tax levee to be set aside for indigent health care. And hb 636, the one that requires six percent, those two things are up in the air right now. Travis County does spend over and above what is currently mandated for indigent health care. And currently -- well, for calendar year '04, under just health and human services we spent in the neighborhood of $12 million, which doesn't amount to that total six percent; however, it does -- treakt does make an indigent health care investment in terms of health care in the jails and starflight that would basically triple the county's investment in indigent health care, so the county at this point is well over and -- spending well over and above anything that would be required under either of those proposed legislations. For the record, I?m the executive assistant, health and human services.
>> what's the latest on 4 extent office.
>> the latest is that it's been significantly revised, largely as a result from feedback from Travis County representatives as well as others from around the state, but Travis County has played a significant role in the debate and in the discussion. As a result of that, it appears to us that that bill is likely to move forward through the process. Sherri fleming and david are prepared to give the court an update on that next week, but not today as we're trying to get a substitute and make sure we understand everything that's in it. So it's moving forward, but it's a much, much better bill than it once was.
>> let us know next week where the Austin-Travis County mhmr stands on the substitute language, I guess?
>> we can do that. We can have a representative from mhmr here, if you would like.
>> or a letter. A two-paragraph letter would be sufficient, I think.
>> yes, judge.
>> anything further?
>> move that we recess until 1:45.
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, April 13, 2005 10:09 AM