Travis County Commissioners Court
April 19, 2005
Item 31
Now let's call up the legislative item, that is number 31. Consider and take appropriate action on legislative issues and proposed bills before the 79th Texas legislature.
>> good morning, sherri flemming. Executive manager for health and human services. I believe that I can be brief. I think that staff notified me that the court needed an update on house bill 470, which is the -- the reorganization of the -- or the proposed reorganization of mhmr. There is a new committee substitute that has been out a couple of weeks now. And -- and basically I -- [multiple voices]
>> sorry.
>> that's okay. I was -- I was trying to determine if you were needing something from me. Basically there are still concerns that our local mhmr has about this committee substitute. Staff has reviewed it. We've had an opportunity to talk with staff from representative Davis' office, who is the bill author. While the structure and makeup of local mhmrs would be significantly different if this legislation passes, there are things that I think are pluses about this legislation and for that reason staff really has no recommendation for the court in terms of opposing our supporting this bill at this point. Just in summary, the bill still does not -- does not provide for mhmr to be both the mental health authority and a provider. That still is an issue for our local mhmr and so you need to be aware of that. I think when we last spoke about this bill, one of our concerns, staff concerns that we brought to the court was a population bracket that was in the previous committee substitute that excluded Travis County from the opportunity of being a single county region. Well, the current committee substitute has no population bracket. So every county in the state of Texas is a part of a region. So no county has the opportunity at this point with the current form of the bill, the opportunity to be a single county region. So houston or harris county is a part of a greater region. I think we are in a 30-county region, for example, so the population bracket was not a part of the current committee substitute.
>> we have concluded that is not a good thing, right?
>> to be a part of a 30 county region.
>> pick up additional population in the geographic area without necessarily picking up more funding.
>> yes, that is correct.
>> well, also Travis County mhmr is not in favor of this.
>> no, they are not. They absolutely are not. The -- the committee substitute does include a system of care language, which you know we are certainly very active in -- in having system of care approaches in how we serve children and families in this county. So that is a plus for us. That -- that they are looking at serving families from a strength based culturally competent family focus perspective. But the other thing that the committee substitute includes is a five-year transition period. And during that time, no funding will shift. All of the funding mechanisms that are currently in place will remain in place. Bottom line here, staff doesn't have a recommendation to the court in terms of a position on this. My recommendation will be to support the conference of urban county's position should that change. This bill has been very fluid. Chris is here, he can probably add an amen to that. There is a -- an alternative bill introduced by representative truitt.
>> where is cuc on that in the bill now?
>> that I don't --
>> they were opposed to the original. I知 not sure where they are on the current version.
>> on the current verption, where is -- on the current version, where is cuc.
>> to my knowledge, cuc has not changed its position from what was originally outlined. As the bill was originally conceived, I think we took a somewhat different posture toward it because when we visited over in the senate, it appeared to us that there was no support in the senate for the original conception of this bill. The bill has been so dramatically changed that I do not believe that the senate is as opposed and maybe even supportive today of the way it is now structured. So everybody has kind of changed. There's been a bunch of 180s on this because of all of the changes to the legislation and on top of that we have this new element, this past week which is kind of -- which has kind of come to light which sherri mentioned with another bill which is a potential alternative to 470 and our plan is in the next day or so to try to understand what that alternative is and if that has the potential to be moving instead of or modifying perhaps this approach.
>> and health and human services staff is not prepared to comment on -- on house bill 2572. We just have not had an opportunity to read it.
>> that's the alternative bill.
>> that is the alternative bill.
>> 2572. When we see 2572 we should think new version of 470.
>> alternative to 470.
>> so both of those active now?
>> yes, sir.
>> hum.
>> but I guess if your question, judge, was mhmr's position, they are still very strong opposition by our local mhmr to 470. Not -- I don't think -- I think they are in favor of 2572, but that's as far as I know at this point.
>> let me find out from them because I guess at some point we ought to figure out whether we ought to oppose, remain neutral or support.
>> yeah.
>> yes.
>> but if we have this as one of our first -- what if we have this as one of our first discussions next week.
>> can do.
>> appreciate it.
>> okay.
>> this is house bill 3029, by strom. What it would do is amend the water code to allow for political subdivisions throughout the state with populations of less than 5,000 residents to receive water for -- to receive funds for water and wastewater improvements. Basically redefines political subdivision to include water supply corporations. Basically the bill is sponsored in part to help out places like north ridge acres which you are familiar with. Your staff has been working on solutions up there and this will basically help them basically evolve from what is a pilot program to a permanent program. So --
>> this is something that -- consists of what we have been doing, we really ought to support it, right?
>> that's my understanding. That's what we are here to recommend to the court.
>> second.
>> move approval.
>> discussion? And that we put together a letter indicating our support communicated to representative strama and remembers of the committee. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Then working on the -- with the representative on this issue would appreciate that.
>> shelene walker. I guess tom nuckols have been working with land use bills. We thought that we would give you an update on a few of those.
>> okay.
>> the first one is house bill 2236. This is representative baxter's [indiscernible] bill which was reported out of the house urban affairs committee. Just a couple of things I wanted to point out to you. It covers basically all fees, costs, fiscal security, and anything money related that we require, a residential developer to pay. I think that it would include balcones canyonlands fees, so I just wanted to let you know it's very -- it's very broad in its scope. What it's going to require you to do is basically go through a -- a process every year where you lay out how much you are going to charge, predict how much you are going to spend, you have to have a couple of public hearings. You basically have to have a budget for each of these fees before the beginning of the fiscal year. And those are all prerequisites to even being allowed to charge the fee. I don't even think that part of the bill is a problem. Because that's fairly reasonable. You know, you can't argue against the idea that you shouldn't be able to collect more than you are going to spend. So that part of the bill isn't a problem. I think there are some problems with what happens if someone thinks that you are violating those requirements. There's no statute of -- it authorizes a lawsuit if someone thinks that you are violating those refresh my memory, but there's no statute of limitations on it. The problem that I see with that is -- you can go through this very lengthy open process and lay everything out for folks. And still be subject to a suit five years later for five years worth of fees. So it -- it might allow people to sort of lay behind the log, if you will. And it seems to me that puts you all in a very disadvantaged position because all of a sudden if you are having to defend five or 10 years worth of fees and the bill basically says if you violate the requirements you have to refund all of the fees, I mean, a lawsuit that you need to refund 10 years worth of fees is going to be a huge fiscal hit on you. That's the type of deal where, you know, faced with the law, having to refund 10 years worth of fees you are probably going to be wanting to say, well, we don't want to risk that, how about let's refund two years worth of fees. But the bottom line is there -- I think if you go through all of the process that the bill requires, you ought to earn something in exchange for it. And that is some sort of statute of limitations, maybe a year, maybe two years, but you know if you go through this process, say here's how much we are going to charge, here's how much we are going to spend and you do that, you ought not to be threatened with a lawsuit over, you know, money that you have already spent long ago.
>> I would make that recommendation to representative baxter.
>> no.
>> should we do it? We have tried get a meeting with representative baxter, we have not had one yet. There was one set up and cancelled by his office and it has not been rescheduled.
>> I didn't get to talk to him last night at 11:00, but he left me a message because that's when he was leaving. That's what's happening to him. He said Commissioner I知 happy to get with you, whoever you want to bring over. We have either got to do it at 6:00 in the morning or we may have to do it at understand night. I said well i'll find out, you know, which time my group prefers. He knows that we want to talk to him, he's willing to do that. I will huddle up with you all today and find out -- whether we are morning people or evening people.
>> is that our major suggestion?
>> yeah that and the other -- the other remedy in there is that basically the attorney general can order you to refund the fees if he thinks that you have violated the act, which is fine. But even attorney generals, there can be an honest disagreement. I would say right now it's the a.g. Orders you, you have no recourse, I think we ought to at least be able to appeal to a district court -- [multiple voices]
>> letter. He may appreciate that. In fact we just go ahead and suggest those in a letter signed by the Commissioners court and say basically here's what we wanted to discuss with you, we discussed this matter a second time, here are our two suggestions and we would be happy to come by and discuss these with you still but this is the court's position based on our reading of the bill. If we do those two, that's what I suggest.
>> I would still like to have Gerald meet with representative baxter, because I think this is not the only bill that we are trying to meet with him about. But that will be helpful to -- for him to have notes already pretaken for him.
>> that's the motion.
>> second.
>> get the letter together. Commissioner Daugherty will still meet with him and these two points will stimulate conversation. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. With Commissioner Gomez temporarily off the dais. Next?
>> senate bill 848, which is the senate companion to house bill 1704, that's passed the senate, reported out of the house land and resource management committee. That one is looking pretty much like a done deal. I wanted to bring that one up simply to say that on a lot of these bills, we seem to be sort of chasing them, behind the curve. It may be too late to do anything about that one. But house bill 2833, which is the takings bill, we are meeting with the representative of -- representatives of the landowners that are supporting that bill. As you all instructed us to do that, that meeting is going to be Thursday. But again that may be a bill where we are going to end up playing catch up on it. Your instructions were to work with cuc, I called cuc and asked what their approach was going to be on this bill and the answer was basically we are so swamped with other stuff, we haven't developed an approach yet, we haven't developed a strategy. My suggestion was going to be this is a bill that you might want to call to the attention of the other cuc members. Many at one of your -- maybe at one of your regular luncheons.
>> what does it do?
>> you know the takings bill, when we went through the interim rule exercise, I talked about the requirements of the takings bill. It was passed in 1995 and basically what it said was as filed was if you do anything that devalues property by 25%, you either have to compensate the land owner for that or repeal the regulation. The issue there was it changed the fundamental definition of what a takings was, throughout years of takings law under the supreme court test. For what a taking is, it's basically a balancing of factors. They balance the impact of the regulation on the landowner, what the landowner's profits are going to be, what he's invested, numerous different economic factors, it balances it against the public interest that's being served. What the takings bill as originally filed was saying there's only one factor that matters, that's fair market value. The bill basically was so controversial that what the legislature did was added a list of nine or 10 exceptions to the bill. And really the exceptions to the bill, the most important part of the bill, because they sort of rendered it toothless. This bill takes away most of those exceptions. So you are back to facing a new definition of takings that says all that matters is the impact on the fair market value of the land, what -- what public interest is being served, doesn't really matter. For example, there's a -- there was an exception put in the bill for -- for grave and immediate threats to life or property. And so if you had -- if you were dealing with the grave or immediate threat to life or property, you were basically exempt from the 25% limit. Under this bill, if you are trying to prevent a grave and immediate threat it really doesn't matter. If you affect more than 25% of the value your regulation is void or you are going to have to basically pay the landowner not to engage in whatever activity he's engaging in that's posing a grave and immediate threat to human life.
>> judge, when we hear the 2:00 presentation, by the southwest Travis County growth dialogue, that's going to come, if you are going to probably get a little bit of a taste about where 2833 has come from. And so it will -- it will sort of probably materialize in front of you as to where this is. I mean, this is -- it really did come about because of what we were doing with the interim. I mean, it really -- it was the impetus behind this group. I think, to go and to make sure that -- that their values were not going to be so -- you know, devalued because of some of the things that you know that they perceive as being, you know, onerous. So -- so I think that we will clearly see, after the presentation, where some of this might be coming from.
>> to date the court has not taken a position on the bill.
>> so what -- what would be our position when we meet with the stakeholders?
>> well, I think you look at the exceptions to the bill. And restoring some of those exceptions. When we met with the sponsors for -- for senator staples and representative cook they said that's something they would consider.
>> but -- for example, there's an exception right now for something you have to do as part of a state or federal mandate. And the way -- as -- the bill as written would basically gut that exception. Even though the state or federal government mandated that you regulate a certain activity, if you go over a certain line you have to compensate the landowner, in which case it becomes not only an unfunded mandate, but a mandate that you have to fund, you know, yourself or you have to repeal the regulation and then you are in violation of the federal state mandate.
>> why wouldn't you put the exceptions in priority order and [indiscernible]
>> uh-huh.
>> I would doubt that we would get, you know, the whole ball of wax, but seems to me on something like that kind of stands out to me as --
>> those are the type of things that we are going to talk about. I only brought it up today because I think senate bill 848 illustrates that you really need to mobilize support fairly early on or you are behind the curve.
>> why wouldn't we go ahead and send that list of exceptions in priority order to the bills sponsors indicate to them we are meeting on Thursday and may have something else to report? Because I agree with you. I mean the legislature is picking up steam, right, meetings are a whole lot longer. Everybody I guess sees the end of the session, they are trying to get as much done as possible. Why wouldn't we do that? These are the exceptions we want you to consider in priority order and maybe just a word or two about our reasoning under each one of them. I mean, if I were a bill sponsor, I guess that I would appreciate that. Why wouldn't we do that today?
>> that's what we are planning to do.
>> and if we are lucky, it's somebody from the sponsor's office, we will call and ask for a meeting, then we will go over and I知 assuming that -- that last on the list would be one that's we think we can live without if necessary. But the closer you get to the top, run into the critical ones. And there are state and federal mandates with which we have to comply and if compliance results in violation of a state law, and also results in our having to pay a property owner, that seems to be unfair to me. I understand they don't like to hear unfunded mandate, if we can say it in words other than unfunded mandate --
>> how about underfunded mandate.
>> or mandated takings. [laughter]
>> I judge is to the appraisal caps, similar approach. The other part of the bill is they basically set this hard and fast limit about what percentage of land a developer gets to develop and, you know, he gets that much and if there's not enough land left for -- to build a flood detention pond or right-of-way, it's left up to the local government to decide what they give up. That way it's a lot like the appraisal cap bill in that the legislature just sets an arbitrary limit, but they don't tell you, you know, what do you give up first if you hit that limit.
>> okay.
>> I was going to say which one of our consultants want to take a swing at this. I would like to know what --
>> [indiscernible]
>> it's what?
>> it's bob's.
>> [indiscernible] this issue, Commissioner. [inaudible - no mic]
>> bob? Do you want to -- how do you feel that we ought to handle this? Do you feel that we ought to handle this deal with sending, you know, some comments over about this or where do you -- do you think we are with what we need to do with it? Are there some things that you think they would be accepting of, comment-wise? Or just read the tea leaf here for me.
>> I think the first thing that needs to happen is this meeting. I'll go ahead, it would be helpful if we could have -- if the objections in writing, then I can use those to work directly with the authors of the bill. I will attend the session if you would like me to. The meeting.
>> judge I mean where I am on this thing, I知 very sympathetic with where these folks are coming from. I don't mind discussing some things, there probably are some things quite honestly they will probably go okay,, I mean, but when push comes to shove, there are a lot of folks that are very, very affected by rules, regulations and things that we -- that we have in place and again I think that some of these will crystallize this afternoon at 2:00. So I would -- I don't want them to get the message from me, you know, that I am not, you know, sympathetic with what they are trying to get -- the attention they are trying to get out of this bill.
>> they may agree with some of these exceptions. Of course they may not.
>> would you rather have them so that you can have them in writing about okay here are the things that they have got some issues with, can you deal with them or --
>> yeah, I think that's -- that makes it much easier for us if we have something concrete and can tick them off and say here's what we would like to see and --
>> and here are the reasons why. The reasons.
>> yeah.
>> so moved.
>> i'll second that. Let's see what we've got.
>> reduce to writing or comments on the bill -- our comments on the bill, especially what we think exceptions are in priority order. Do we call them to the sponsor's attention immediately or do we wait until after the Thursday meeting?
>> I think wait until after the Thursday meeting, see where we are.
>> this is not one of those trains fastly moving downhill.
>> I say that because I think we can send the list to the sponsors, but the first thing they are going to want to know, the people supporting the bill, what do they think about this? Find that out Thursday.
>> okay.
>> motion put together, I guess hold on to it until Thursday. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Is that one of those letters that the court ought to sign --
>> I don't think we need a letter from the court yet. We may need one next Tuesday.
>> more powerful as the session goes on, tom.
>> that's fine.
>> okay.
>> I do think we ought to bring this up next week for a report back from the stakeholders meeting as well as if we get something from the sponsors between now and Tuesday and need to do follow-up action would be in a position to do it for.
>> thank you. Ms. County clerk?
>> good morning.
>> good morning.
>> still is.
>> still is. I知 here to address you on 2404. It's a bill that was written exclusively for Travis County. And it calls for an unusual flip flopping of election duties between elected officials. Judge, how would you like to conduct elections in addition to your regular job. That's what this bill calls for.
>> status quo I like a whole lot better.
>> I think the committee that heard this bill were sort of raising one eyebrow what is this all about. The original bill called for Travis County and harris county to -- to immediately go to an elections administrator form of elections. And both harris county and travis have indicated that they are not interested in doing that. So the committee substitute came out after many, many weeks of it being talked about but nobody had seen it. Finally it did come out. I got it from a friend of a friend which was the only way to get it. It called for this odd flip flopping thing. What the committee did when it heard it last week was sent it back to the author. I think it's still alive. Odd though it is. We can only speculate as to the author's intent.
>> how unusual that it was excluding harris county that had the same arrangement that they didn't flip it and force this unusual, you know -- it was a great idea for harris, ought to be a great idea for every single county regardless of jurisdictional size.
>> I agree with you. If it's a good idea for us, why isn't a good idea for the rest of the state. But make no mistake, this bill is exclusively Travis County. The bracketed population is between 2.1 million and 850,000. And we are the only county that falls in that bracket. And does not have an elections administrator. Actually we are the only county that falls in that bracket.
>> however tempting it would be to give your election duties to judge Biscoe, I知 not going there. [laughter]
>> [indiscernible] support that bill.
>> dana, whose is this in.
>> representative keel wrote it, it is appearing in the county affairs, the house county affairs committee instead of the elections where it should have gone.
>> huh.
>> have we tried chat with representative keel about this.
>> yes, sir, I haven't gotten very far.
>> I move we oppose 2404 in its current condition and that we monitor in case there is yet another substitute.
>> second: let me ask this question. Is the rest of the Travis County delegation aware of this particular bill?
>> yes, sir, they are. As well as the entire county affairs committee.
>> elliott is on --
>> elliott is on that committee. Although it was the chair who asked the most pointed questions, which was interesting.
>> what now.
>> the chair of the committee, ray allen asked the most pointed questions.
>> this bill was it table understand the committee?
>> it was not tabled. It was left pending and referred back to the author.
>> oh.
>> it's still alive.
>> it's still alive.
>> does it indicate lack of expertise in conducting the elections.
>> no, sir, they were very clear that they did not wish to allege that.
>> I have no problem with doing it. [laughter]
>> the clerk and the county tax assessor collector, we said basically we have no interest in doing it, we are already overworked, it won't matter to the committee.
>> it does matter to the committee. They do believe.
>> that's what I知 saying.
>> you testified on this last week, correct, because we were over there on 2759 and you took off to testify against it.
>> I did. It was a very difficult thing to testify against because representative keel I don't believe ever was there, I never saw him. Certainly in the testimony to lay it out. Mac mcguire was the person who was speaking in favor of the bill only he was speaking in favor of the original bill and was unaware that there was a substitute.
>> substitute. Huh.
>> I don't know what's going on.
>> from a practical perspective, if it -- if it gets to the county judge, I have actually no expectation of running an election and cannot -- have no desire to do one. Plus they are very time consuming.
>> well yes.
>> I do think some reasons ought to go along with the opposition.
>> well, yes.
>> from my viewpoint the best thing would be to say the elected officials point out as alternate election operators if the county clerk is running for office, have indicated that they are all overworked already, have no expertise in doing this, no irdesire to do.
>> there is no expertise nor inclination to accept the duties. I believe we have a constitutional protection.
>> I was going to say the constitution in the local government code lays out the duties of the independent and elected officials around the state without regard to jurisdiction.
>> correct. In addition to the -- just Travis County people, the county district clerk's association and the tax assessor collector's associations have both indicated they are both working to make it go away.
>> can we put together a diplomatically worded letter within the next couple of days.
>> why.
>> so you can convey these thoughts in a way that does not --
>> just in case it comes back.
>> generate more opposition.
>> yeah. That's part of my motion is that a diplomatically worded letter be written.
>> and signed by the court. I do think this is one that the court should sign. I mean --
>> yes, sir.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes unanimously.
>> thank you for your time.
>> dana, decree quickly -- very quickly, the elections bill related to 3,000 cap, it's still pending --
>> that's her typical way of conducting her committee is to leave everything pending until the last. Then we have a 5,000, we might even hear a 6,000 before this is over.
>> but the senate, if I understand has already heard it in committee and they have already voted it out of committee.
>> correct. That's my understanding, too.
>> keep us up to date as to where this is going.
>> I absolutely. It does look like we are going to have 5,000. It also does look like house bill 57 has legs and that we are going to end up with two election dates. I知 anticipating that that will happen.
>> do we know where the governor is on the 3,000 to 5,000?
>> not this time. You all may have a better feel for that than I do. Bob may have.
>> we are trying to deal with the concerns that have been brought to everybody's attention.
>> okay. But as far as we know the urban counties are supportive?
>> yes, sir. Very.
>> in fact galveston is the lead county on this. And they were there last week with me testifying before the house committee.
>> and the other thing that I thought of, too, in Travis County especially, the number of voters taking advantage of early voting opportunities really is just astounding.
>> it is. 60%, more than half choose early voting.
>> actually we -- that was part of my testimony is that we actually got information from those seven largest urban counties to basically show that it's not just the Travis County miracle of voting early, collin county, Williamson county, there --
>> there is no anolomy. There's just a whole bunch of people who felt in their hearts they needed to turn out to vote and they did.
>> even in a presidential year we have record registrations and record turnout.
>> we broke the 50 year floodplain, yes.
>> actually, Williamson county did better than us in early voting as did collin county.
>> they did.
>> did we vote on that?
>> all in favor?
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> that was just a -- we were already --
>> we voted on the other one. Okay. Okay. Thanks.
>> just an additional update on that voting precinct bill. The senate bill will be -- is on the locale door in the senate -- locale door in -- local calendar in the senate on Thursday. We expect it may be in the house next week. The house may wait on that senate bill.
>> okay. That's good.
>> judge, we wanted to give you, a very, very short update on some of the sessions major bills that the court has inquired about in the past. Senate bill 1 was the appropriations bill for this session. Began conference committee began meeting this morning, so there are five members from the house and five members from the senate. Who began their deliberations to try to resolve the differences between the house and senate budget. The senate budget is considerably higher in terms of dollars. I don't know the exact number, but in $2 billion range. The county's interest in that particularly is on issues related to funding for health and human services areas such as chip and medicaid. Also a number of other areas that the court has an interest in, so we will be attempting to identify those areas. Continuing to identify those areas over the next few days and trying to ensure that to the extent that there is room in the budget to adopt one side or the other's, it's more favorable to Travis County, we will be doing that. In addition to that, let me give you a very short statement on house bill 2 and 3. We have been -- house bill 2 is the school finance or the school funding education bill, house bill 3 is the tax restructuring and property tax relief bill. Both of those passed the house several weeks ago and we reported to the court at that time the issue of particular note in that legislation that the court was interested in relating to appraisal caps. You are aware that that has moved forward in other legislation and subsequently failed. But those two big bills continue to be kind of the biggest drivers of this session. The senate has not reached consensus yet about what they would like to accepted back to the house -- like to send back to the house. At this point is appears what the senate is likely to send back will be pretty different from what the house passed, both in house bill 2, house bill 3. Really my report is one of economic development. What I mean by that is mean the legislature has a pretty good chance of being back for additional special sessions, which I understand is always good for the economy and -- in Austin. And I think the conventional wisdom is that -- that it's going to be difficult for the two bodies to come together during this session. Now, I think there are lots of efforts active every day in an attempt to reach a result this time. But it is increasingly appearing that that is going to be hard to do.
>> there's two I wanted to check on. If you are finished.
>> sure, I am. We will be happy to answer questions about anything else on the agenda.
>> we think that the -- that the appraisal cap legislation is dead?
>> yes, sir, we do.
>> but the revenue cap bill is still alive.
>> yes, sir.
>> that's correct.
>> it can be attached. Over and over and over again.
>> as a rider, yeah. We think that our legislative delegation is officially alert to that possibility, or should we send them another communicating of some sort.
>> I think they have been fully informed. I believe, the bill is back up Thursday I think on the calendar, 1006, with the revenue caps. So it will be back on the floor this week.
>> when I was sitting in, low pressuring to representative islet's bill, when it was still, the house, representative baxter is one of the leads on revenue caps.
>> it was what now?
>> lubbock. Gattis is his partner on that from Williamson.
>> lubbock county.
>> yeah, where they were able to accomplish their property tax miracle by shifting everything to sales tax. Their electric utility.
>> I tell you what, you listen to -- to the governor on the radio this morning. It sure sells, it sure sells to the public. You are not affected by new growth. Don't you think that you ought to have a say in spend being if it goes over 104%. It's -- you do, called the election process.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...it's easy to say that you can do that, but reality is how many people want to go out, subject themselves to this crazy business that we're, in how many people wanted to try to raise money, how many people want to go through the rigors of doing it and look at -- and look at what happens to us. I mean, you know, we continue to elect folks and go why would we do that.
>> i've never had any shortage of opponents.
>> I haven't noticed you have been beaten.
>> no, and i've raised taxes and I haven't been beaten.
>> ms. Sonleitner is talking about the quality of her service, not --
>> i've got two real quick. Do we -- I知 getting concerned about the -- i'll call it s.b.767. The b.c.p. Bill, about having a house --
>> easement?
>> yes, sir.
>> it's on the senate calendar.
>> the house side. We're getting down to the point of I would hate that all the good effort we've got on the senate side and we just aren't moving on the house side.
>> the best strategy at this point is to get that bill passed out of the senate and then it will have sufficient momentum that it will be appropriate to -- with senator wentworth's assistance to have somebody pick it up. Essentially what's kind of happening right now on all of these bills is that the senate is not doing very much with house bills and the house isn't doing very much with senate bills. And that's just kind of where they are at. As they try to resolve some of these other bigger issues of disagreement between them. We do have a very short list of three people that we believe would all be good candidates to pick that bill up. They are all acceptable to senator wentworth. And I would anticipate that one of those three will agree to carry it.
>> so as soon as the senate acts, that's our best opportunity to make our move at the house. Is that a back at you on representative cruisey's bill that he filed that is the perfect storm related to the j.p.s being completely overwhelmed with toll plaza violations of getting that into an administrative process. It's still pending in transportation. Should I assume basically just the reverse is true there that when it comes out of the house side, that's when it will pick up a senate sponsor?
>> yes. Actually I think that bill may even -- and bob, you may is something more current on this. I think it's possible that bill may get rolled into a bigger transportation, omnibus bill, is my basic understanding of that.
>> okay. We all have issue with s.h.130 of not having billboards, which is is something I think we're all interested in.
>> yeah, the bill -- the 2702 by krusee will be up this afternoon in transportation so we'll see if it --
>> gets rolled into that.
>> [inaudible].
>> next week.
>> okay.
>> anything else?
>> no, sir.
>> what's the status of the public school finance bill?
>> that's house bill 2, and it is contingent on the positive age of house bill 3 at least in the current conception of it. It's passed the house. The senate late out in committee its version of house bill 2. The senate version is significantly different than the house in terms of the financing formulas to pay for the schools and in terms of the dollars that the senate is support to go put into the schools. It's substantially higher.
>> there's not a conference committee?
>> there's no ability for their to be a conference committee appointed yet but the full floor of the senate has not considered house bill 2. I expect that will happen. I think it will happen probably not until the first week in may, and then it will go to conference committee and the various newspaper reports on it, judge, suggest that there's a little strategy involved here in that the senate is kind of getting a little closer to the end of the session before it sends house bill 2 and house bill 3 to conference. So there's a relatively limited time, kind of a here's our deal, you know, take it or, you know, maybe we just won't get it done this time. I think the house's response right now is okay.
>> a likelihood of a special session?
>> I think so. I have heard reports depending on what time of day and day of the week that suggests movement on house bill 3 toward consensus. I think the senate may be moving more toward an election or a choice on the part of a taxpayer about how to pay business tax. That is structurally kind of what the house did. So that seems to me to be a movement in that direction, but there are other elements of what the senate is proposing that I believe are probably not able to garner support in the house. So I think they probably have a pretty long way to go.
>> when you said election, just caught my ear on that, are we talking about an election as will the people get to decide?
>> no, what I mean is a choice. When you pay your taxes, you can pay payroll tax or you can pay franchise tax.
>> I知 remembering the last time we had a lot of serious discussions about whether they were going to try to move up an election to September versus November and that was a real critical issue related to an election we hadn't budgeted yet.
>> right. I remember.
>> anything else regarding legislation? Thank you all very much. Appreciate it.
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 20, 2005 10:34 AM