Travis County Commissioners Court
May 9, 2006
Item 20
20 is to discuss follow-up reports and issues regarding rons sponses to request for information on collection of delinquent taxes including the following, a, any clarifying information regarding proposals. B, any additional analysis by county staff or evaluation committee. C, follow-up action by the Commissioners court. And d, receive property taxes final report dated July 2005, analysis of current process for delinquent property taxes collection and evaluation of the proposals of private firms on the collection of delinquent property taxes.
>> now, when I put this item on, my thinking was that we left it pending before getting heavily involved in the '06 budget process, and really have promised to revisit it. And to be honest, from time to time we had different reasons not to, so I stuck it on about a week ago for us to bring it up today and have a short discussion hopefully, and maybe have a more extensive discussion if we need to next week. Now, I do distinctly recall that one of the last things she did was have a fairly lengthy open court discussion, and during that discussion it was brought to our attention by linebarger that maybe the county had misinterpreted linebarger's submission, linebarger and others is the name of the law firm. What we said basically was that we understand that, get whatever clarifying information you need to, and make sure that that's what's analyzed. So I think if nothing else today we ought to do that. And the other thing we can do is hear whatever comments we need to. And the third one would be for us to decide basically how to proceed from here. In my view there's no way to get around a fairly lengthy discussion, but if we could kind of define the issues to be discussed this week so we maybe could prepare for that discussion next week, I think we would have done ourselves a world of good. Last year there was a -- what I would call a revenue hit that the auditor projected, so I think that whatever clarification we receive today the question this week will be whether the revenue projected impact would be the same, or in view of the claire clarification whether it would differ, whether it would go up or down. The other thing is that there were a couple of monetary and financial seems to be the big issue it seems to me, but a secondary issue surfaced and that was tax equity or tax fairness to residents who reside in the low to moderate income areas and whether they would they were being disproportionately impacted. We did hear several arguments along those lines last time and I assume those arguments will be made again this time. So the question would be what kind of data do we have either for or against the argument? How do we clearly bring that forward for analysis? And any other information that the court wants to see.
>> unfortunately I think it was like July when we last discussed this. And on several occasions I was asked when is the matter coming back? And one time there was the November elections, next time it was christmas, the next time it was elections, next time it was post-election vacations and now here we are basically.
>> and judge, the only thing that I would add, and that was why I add added the language for d is that what I felt was perhaps something that needed to be much more specific is that we do indeed have back from last July, that is what the name of this report is, so I知 not changing a single thing that was not on the front here, is that where I felt that there was something lacking last time we brought this up is that when we had an unsolicited proposal back in the 2000-2001 time frame, because it was withdrawn, a very extensive report that was done by pbo at that time neff made it into our permanent school record. And we did have our committee made up of the auditor, planning and budget and purchasing, spend about six months' time coming up with a very extensive report. And whether you agree with the conclusions in it or not, it seemed like that needed to be officially received into our records just as a baseline or the beginning of the story, end of the story, whatever, and kind of like where we were a few weeks ago with the ctmra annual report, and whether you agree or not, it is to put the report into our records so there's not that kind of a situation where an amazing amount of work, man hours that went into this, does not get acknowledged and put into the permanent records of Travis County, which is the intent and sole intent of d on this proposal.
>> if that's a motion, I wouldn't mind seconding your motion because I want the staff to know that I have tremendous respect for the work that you do. So this is not an issue of being against staff or being for staff or being against the public or for the public. It is simply one of objectivity and one that somehow -- I kind of very pollyannaish come back to my role as Commissioner. I have the people in precinct 4 and I feel a tremendous responsibility to consider all of the things that we do here in county government. I知 probably very foolish that way, but that's the way I am. The other thing is that I think -- I have responsibility to let people, especially the minority community that lives in precinct 4, and I might add in precinct 1. Because their understanding of the processes that we have here in county government is not the same as those of us who are here everyday. And so they have some questions and they came up during the election process. I need to find out and I need to touch base with all of the county staff here, and I need to get some good answers so that I can represent my district as well as I can and so that -- not because I知 worried about winning next time, but I think it's just -- I think it's part of ethics to learn what we do well, to understand it well so that I can then interpret it to people who -- for people that I represent. And most of those are east of i-35. And so if I didn't do that, then I would feel like I was really failing at doing my job and earning my pay. So that's the whole reason for this, and I will second your motion to accept the report because of the respect that I have for staff and the time that you put into it. So if we could move on that.
>> and judge, I知 happy to offer that up as a motion, but I don't want to preclude what order you would like to handle things, but I think receiving the report and basically engrossing this into the record so that when anybody ghoul he wills, whether it's on google google or through our county court records, I put the full title on there in terms of key words that it would pop up because somebody would have that as a resource. Because I think what I致e discovered as somebody else, they say have you seen the county's report? And they go no. And this would allow that report to get some kind of official status beyond that it was given to us and discussed in a court meeting, but it was never officially received like we do, revenue reports and ctrma reports.
>> I seconded the motion to accept the report.
>> I知 going to land on fairness. I want to make sure that whatever we do is fair. I recall when we did have those limited discussions back in July and the evidence that was presented to this court was nmplt that did -- was information that did show the treatment as far as discovery of delinquent taxes. In different portions of the county, precinct 1, 2, 3, 4. And it varied tremendously in the eastern parts of Travis County disproportionately based on the 2004 assessed value of homes that fell below $111,000. And the numbers are staggering to me how a lawsuit which has added progressive tax in my opinion, additional tax, based on not only collecting delinquent taxes, but adding on top of that the cost of recovering those taxes. So whatever we do, I think we need to be fair about it and let's call it what it is. I would like to see where we are able to do whatever. Today and in the upcoming sessions, we'll make a decision one way or the other. I think there are a whole lot of things that need to be revealed in this process, the law that requires attorneys' fees on lawsuits, how they're collected and whether or not that a public firm (indiscernible). How a private firm can do both 33.07 and 33.48 where the tax collector can only do one on checking fees for lawsuits on delinquent taxes. So I think there is a lot of things that need to be fleshed out. I don't know if that report we received in July was address -- addressed these particular concerns. But the bottom line is that fairness must be applied. And I don't think no one on this Commissioners court is going to disagree with fairness. I don't believe it. So I知 looking for fairness in this particular situation and to make sure that the numbers are the same. We're looking at maybe different numbers. Maybe there's some numbers that may not be the same and as far as I知 concerned in this overall point of view. But at the end of the day there is definitely some disparity among the homeowners in precinct 1 and also 4, I mean, significant, 338% for you, Margaret and 35 for mine, precinct 1, one example. On properties that have appraised 2004 value of 100,000 less dollars, so seeing that and then of course the lawsuit filed on -- in recovery of those delinquent taxes is something that I think in my mind is disparity. So I知 going to look for fairness. That's what I知 looking for in this whole process. And so that's what the bottom line is. [ applause ]
>> now, the reason I don't think we should move on d is that where we left it last time was --
>> move on what, judge?
>> move on d.
>> d as in david.
>> the reason I posted a, b and c the way it is is it's not posted for action except directions from the court so we can determine appropriate follow-up action, but it won't bother me if a majority of the court wants to not do d. Where we left it whether or not is the linebarger firm's proposal was being misinterpreted. And what I asked them to do was back then was come to a meeting with appropriate county people and clarify whatever needs to be clarified so we can make sure we understood that. And so in my view we left that pending. Whether the auditor changes its report and recommendation in response there to so another question too. I just think it kind of premature to move on d. But there's a motion and a second. And I understand the motion to be to accept the property taxes final report dated July 2005. That's the one from the auditor.
>> judge, I would simply use the word receive because I don't want people to -- when you say accept, that means -- I want to be real clear that I知 just saying that this goes into our records, that it's received. That's it.
>> and the definition of received is?
>> that a proper copy gets filed with the county clerk and that this becomes part of our minutes and backup that gets filed with the county in the same way that we received the ctrma report. It's part of our records as opposed to just something that's sitting on a shelf someplace and it's just one more report. It's acknowledging the work. And if we can get that to you --
>> it's already in the record.
>> as receiving?
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> thank you. That's what I知 looking for. That is receiving it.
>> [ inaudible ].
>> no, we do. She has not scanned it. It's not part of your records. It's part of our minutes?
>> it's already received.
>> I don't think that was done on action of this Commissioners court.
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> in terms of this Commissioners court acknowledging that report --
>> we not only acknowledged it, we spent five or six hours discussing it. There's no way to get around it being there. What we did not do was formally act on it except to give directions to clarify and make sure we understand it, have it back on the court's agenda for follow-up discussion, and we haven't done that except for today. That's what I知 saying.
>> I see our county clerk is visiting --
>> if we are just accepting it, we've already done that. And we did that eight or nine months ago is the problem.
>> and that's what usually is the practice as well when people come to present. They automatically bring a copy to her. So it part of the backup that everybody gives out. So we've already received it.
>> in my view we have. Now, we have not act odd it though. If we follow the directions we gave last July, July of 2006, then what we will do is determine whether there's follow-up action required, and I知 suggesting we do that for next week. And then after that there's formal action in response to it, and this time I知 suggesting we take some formal action one way or the other because we sort of left it hanging in July of '06. I知 saying let's not do that again. But there's a world of options without doing that.
>> so you're talking about next week as far as action is concerned?
>> that's what I mean.
>> I don't disagree with you.
>> I知 trying to get to putting a period on the end of a sentence that's just left out there dangling in terms of this is either meaningful or it's not in terms of an analysis was done and there's been no formal action by this Commissioners court to weigh in on anything in regards to this report and whether that really is something in terms of accepting or not or ending the rfi process or not, but the idea that we simply filed backup with an item in the records, that that somehow is sufficient. I don't find that to be sufficient.
>> is there a second to the motion?
>> the motion is withdrawn. Does another member of the court second Commissioner Sonleitner's?
>> I値l second.
>> Commissioner Daugherty second the motion? Any discussion of the motion? Commissioner Sonleitner, Commissioner Daugherty in favor of the motion? All who disagree with that motion. Commissioner Davis and Commissioner Gomez.
>> it would have been redundant. I find this fascinating.
>> speak up so the record can get that.
>> I find all of this fascinating.
>> so do i.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners] middle middle you will have appear opportunity, sir, to make whatever comments you wish after this, okay. The reason that I called linebarringer up, in July of 06 we said make shower that we understand what they submitted and respond on to that submission, they are not listing in the agenda as clarifying information. Any information that you would like to give us today, we would be more than happy to receive, we will call on you next.
>> if they need an additional week because they have gotten 0 notice they had the opportunity to come today, I would certainly allow them to have an additional week to come back and supplement anything they do today because they could not have a presentation on big --
>> the judge's, ab and c helps us again.
>> we would love to request an tension until next week.
>> sure.
>> two bites at it, today and next week. Anything today or next week is okay.
>> thank you, judge.
>> judge for clarification I made the call because I saw it listed as discussion. And if only two firms were left in it, I wasn't sure if they knew, just did it as a courtesy. If I might make a suggestion, since I know there are people here from the community that want to add the course, I知 not sure how long they could star stay if the court would allow it, we have already done the most important thing we wanted to do today which is hand you the clarifying materials that you requested about our proposal. If you look on page 2, that's -- that's at the bottom of page 2 is where we try to clarify what we think was unfortunate confusion that was the basis of the earlier committee's report. If you remember, and I didn't know we were going to talk about it specifically. But their report never mentioned our proposal. It assumed that we would both the action and the economics of it assumed that we would propose complete privatization. That was never our proposal. It's not our proposal today. We are in a unique position in Travis County of having an ongoing process that's already funded, already in place, already has employees and has an infrastructure that most counties do not have. And I would say that it's subject to serious debate, but if the court believed there are components of that that left in place would be a good component for the future, our proposal acknowledged that. And what we said in their first presentation was essentially we've got a five month time frame of how lawyers share the work. You can go all the way to one end and privatize it starting in February, going all the way to the other end each year, not have a turnover in privatation until July. We have said essentially our proposal, the spirit of it, is find the place. If you could share that work and have a public/private partnership that is defined basically on page 1, which does -- as Commissioner Davis said, tries to take advantage of both options that you have with the law, rather than going all one way or all the other. I知 going to try to run through a very short presentation and defer to the people that I think are waiting to speak. If you allow me at the end of those folks I might have something else to say, but I will go as fast as possible, I understand that to be the desire of the court. My boss may want to say something from time to time and I never quarrel with that. This is dale linebarger, the principal and founder of our firm, my brother was pressed into service to pass out the -- the kind of summary material that basically tries to describe what we were trying to put on the table when we were requested to months ago. And update on a couple of things that were not known at the last time that the court discussed it, some months ago. The first thing is to highlight the fact that what we are proposing, if you look at page 1, the real issue for Travis County is we've had a single kind of one trick pony operation, we have done pretty well with it. But it has a -- a flaw in it. That has been kind of growing over the years. That is because of the attorney general's opinions, we were -- we tried to do it under 3307, which the private firms use. But their ag's opinions that ruled that Travis County could not do it that we and we tried then to switch, this is 20 years ago, and began using the 3348 process. That was the only option then and the only option left to a county now, but the 3348 process assumes to get the feed that you would use to fund your system, your collection system, it assumes that you must first file a lawsuit. So if you are going to get the fees in, we got quickly and more expandingly addicted to lawsuits to fund the system. No one wants to go outside those fees, one way or another, lest you do the thing that nobody want, which is begin to fund the delinquent collection system on the backs of the taxpayers who have already paid and shouldn't be double taxed by paying their own taxes, then paying additional money to try to go get the other people who haven't paid to pay their taxes. The distinction we are trying to point out is that -- is that private firm is not restricted by 3348. They can use 3348, if you hand the ball off on them, the full authority that any public lawyer would have. In addition, they have the ability to use 3307, which says that you can use collection measures and charge the fee that -- that is not -- doesn't go to the taxpayer in charge -- and charge against the again ram fund or the taxpayer in general to make those collection efforts and you don't have to file a lawsuit. If you need to, you can. But essentially the private firm has both options and the government lawyer only has one. Since we thought the system would be enhanced, if you could take the best parts of the 3348 system we have been operating under and augment it with the additional options that a firm has under 3307, and you found a partnership, you could improve the system by getting the benefits of both. That is the spirit of our proposal and we could talk about many details and we of course are able to do it as much as you need, that's the spirit of it. I want to say if you will look at the top of peanl 2, page 2, I find that the public discussion of this always has some confusion in it. This proposal would not alter the collections functions of any county department relating to property tax collection on the overwhelming number of account which are paid before the delinquency date. In other words, collections in general would not be changed. It's not even what is part of this discussion. This discussion only relates to the collection of the smallest group of most delinquent pair, taxpayers each year, that is generally speaking I would guess about one and a half to three percent of the total that -- that are generally the smallest counts and the ones that are most delinquent after July of the following year. I -- I have great respect for our elected county officials and I tried to put out on the cover letter of our earlier proposal and I feel compelled to repeat it today. We -- the basic question is not whether the county attorney is doing a better job than a private law firm or would do a better job. It's not about any particular office holder, I have a great affection and respect for our county attorney, I have been working with him a long time and I consider him family. The question is not who does the workment the question is which is the about her process and would we do better if we utilized a blending of both. Page 3 is where we basically acknowledge that we put on the table that -- that if each year for the delinquent accounts, you turned him over at some point after you worked them as much as you felt reasonable from the top down and got what the judge referred to a year ago as the low hanging fruit, it is the easiest collections with the most maximum returns for your fees and your revenue, and then decided at what point would we be better off having gone so far down the value chain that we would get away from the emphasis of the lawsuits and try to implement a non-lawsuit, try I guess to put greater emphasis on the non-lawsuit options. And when would you do that? It's of course way more profitable for a private firm if you turned the whole thing over to them. I never supported that. And I -- I don't propose it today. It's -- it's probably the most -- most beneficial to the county to wait until the very last day under the statute, which is July 1. What we are -- what I said in our first proposal was the question is where in between would it make sense, if anywhere, and if you -- if you did it in the middle, would you share the work and if you did it, would you share the fee up to July 1. Those are the policy debates, they should have an economic analysis. That analysis is nowhere in the earlier report, that's why we asked to clarify it because however good the intentions were, there was great confusion, I suppose, because it -- this kind of proposal was not at all evaluated in the earlier process. I知 going to flip through pretty quickly, now, stop anywhere that you want me to, but -- but our -- if you look starting on page 5, I will make a few quick points. This -- this shows you updated information. Should I use the -- I think that I can --
>> I understand that you just -- on the end it will snap off, the mic on the end.
>> this chart shows just since last year when we last discussed it, there's been an over 15% increase in the lawsuits. This chart says essentially don't worry about a single year, if you look the last three years, and compare them in an average, for all three of those years, compared it to the three years before, what you see is a 20% per year increase. Over a longer period of time. I think there's a good point to be made that you don't look at a single career because it can go up and down. But the trend is upward every year and it is indicative of the fact that to fund an increasing bureaucracy of increasing size and cost the only place in the present system that you can go to fund it is more lawsuits.
>> ken, a quick question just to clarify. In terms of those numbers that you have got there, in terms of going from those two numbers twr what to what, from what to what, you want to put that chart back up so I can refer to it, I知 sorry. Does --
>> packet on page 5. I知 making sure for purposes of the tv cameras. Does that take into account the number of parcels that might have increased over that same time period? Austin Travis County is growing. We have more and more parcels and we also have more and more jurisdictions that we are collecting taxes for. So my question is does that take into account any of those factors or is it simply there were x amount one year and there's x amount the next year?
>> to my knowledge, it doesn't because the reports from the tax office gives us the number of lawsuits per year. The year before it has -- two years before it skyrocketed. The year before this it had gone down some. And then it's gone back up 15%. So I don't think anybody thinks those kind of broad based changes have much for example the year before data, there wasn't a reduction in the number of parcels.
>> well, in the meantime.
>> to my knowledge it's not tied in any way to parcels.
>> do you think that that's relevant in terms of if the pie gets bigger, the question is is the percentage of cases that wind up becoming subject to a delinquent tax lawsuit, has that changed or is it just the sheer number? Sheer number, we have got more parcels, collecting for more jurisdictions, how would you not account for that in some factor that that somehow is relevant because it is?
>> I would say -- with so many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of parcels, I can't remember how many parcels we have, the -- the small number of increases in parcels in any given year, relate -- relative to the whole wouldn't affect this number, it would be a tiny, tiny fraction of a percent. But if I may, I知 -- I知 -- I pledged to go fast, I will stay as long as you want, I know some of these folks want me to go faster, if you have any questions I will stop 'n go as long as you want. Otherwise I will go as fast as I can. This -- this tries to make the point that if you are looking at performance data, rather than looking into the -- the analyses of all over the state, which can be interpreted by different people in different ways, I have thought and have tried make the point and make again today that the most reliable performance data that you have is the data right here in your own community that compares one -- one firm's collection rate in the same community to another process in the same community. The good news is Travis County has very good collection rates already in this community, but we have a client, when we have a client we do a little bit better. The collection rates for everyone are better than almost anywhere in the state. But I do want to -- to say that -- that this I do believe would indicate if you went with the linebarger firm you would not suffer any kind of reduction in your collection rate.
>> what's the point about the school district on page 11? Right under that chart?
>> it reads the collections for local jurisdictions would not be reduced. Meaning the collection rate. In direct, the line barger collection rates exceeds the collection rates attained by the present system for all of these jurisdictions. I don't know of any jurisdictions, there might be one or two of 80 something that beats what we do in our own collections in this community. That's the main point that I was trying to make.
>> the part underlined is -- is the --
>> you mean the word exceeds?
>> well, the legislature just --
>> oh, I知 sorry at the bottom of the page. That's a slightly different topic. But I値l tell you what it boils down to.
>> I can wait if you plan to get to it. I just saw it on the bottom of 11.
>> there is an economic impact to the school funding reform process. That we have known about as being possible for -- for some years. And that is if -- if there was -- if you look at page 11, that comes from a -- from a letter from the county attorney, when this wasn't an issue of whether you privatized or not, they were just tying to essentially communicate with the auditor back in 2003 on what might cut the actual attorney's fees that -- that you utilize to fund our system. And the point is acknowledged by the county attorney at that time, they were looking at different things that might make the way we are doing it now, have for years, might make it less viable. One of the things they said is of course if we had a dramatic reduction in our overall appraisals for the whole county, had a real estate crash and something like that might upset it. But reported which was probably a reasonable opinion at the time, that it was a less likely threat to overall collections would be a sudden shift in school funding should the legislature significantly lower school district ad valorem taxes in favor of increased same and other taxes. The point being if -- if what -- what the wise judge dietz has done, and the -- the Texas supreme court has supported and confirmed, it will -- the process is in place at the legislature or by court order, move forward in the way that they appear to, you will have for the first time in a long time, a dramatic reduction in the largest piece of your delinquent pie. Essentially school district taxes make up 60% of all of the taxes you collect. And if you have a -- if you have a 20% excuse me a one third reduction in your 60%, you are going to reduce the size of the pie by 20%. You are going to have the ripple effect of reducing the size arguably of the -- of the delinquent pie at 20%, since your attorney fees are derivative of that, probably around a 20% reduction in the fees that you used to fund your present system. It's a variable that hadn't existed ever before and it's one of the things that I think has never been faced by the court because we have never had this historically changed in such a dramatic reduction from the funding source you relied on.
>> jim, could I go back just for half a second to the Round Rock graphic. If I were to put the demographics in terms of average home price, economic demographics, racial demographics, for the Round Rock school district and compare that to Travis County, would I find those to be identical situations?
>> certainly not identical. But I think if you will although over the graph, we put in everything that we thought would be kind of a -- kind of a smorgasboard, including Austin community college, Pflugerville, next door to Round Rock, then even all jurisdictions combined so you could fold in everything that was in the community from every direction, plus Travis County, Austin and then -- Austin i.s.d. And the point is we exceed all of those.
>> can you tell me and I知 sure the t.e.a. Can tell me, I値l certainly ask them if you don't have the answer, what are the demographics on the Round Rock independent school district in terms of cool lunches, which gives you an indication of how poor the kids are in that school district compared to -- to aisd. What's the average price of a home there. What's the racial break down of the Round Rock independent school district so that I知 -- that I know that I知 indeed looking at an apples to apples comparison between that district and what you are trying to say for all of the other work going on in this area.
>> well, I of course don't have off the top of my head a demographic comparison. I would say --
>> you think it's relevant if.
>> I think if there was a dramatic difference in one to another it would be relevant of course. But I would point out this is a pretty broad sampling, when you look at everything on that chart. And -- and if you believe it's not then you should disregard the evidence.
>> in terms of the number of low performing schools, number of exemplary schools, blue ribbon schools. If you have one district that is exceedingly high and I知 willing to bet some money on Round Rock school district, why is that the one that you are comparing it to as opposed to say oh, harris county, there's a large county.
>> well, for example, I would provide any information that I get. But if my recollection is correct, we exceeded in Round Rock even the collections that you all have done for evens and pretty, you know, high dollar places with -- which don't have those kind of graphic challenges. If you want that information I will do my best to get it.
>> we haven't done eanes, we don't do eanes, that's somebody else.
>> we have.
>> we got their contract like a half a second ago.
>> a little more than half a second. But my point is --
>> [indiscernible]
>> as I said, what we are trying to say is not that if you remember I said y'all do great on collection rates and so do we. But if we are doing a little bit better than what you are doing, I would think that you would at least say that we are not a great risk of reduction in collection rate if we are doing better in the same community.
>> why didn't you give us some other information oh, say the largest county in the state of Texas that you also collect for, which also has interesting demographics and extremely poor people and extremely rich people, take live in hair county. Why is it that we have never seen anything in harris county compared to anything that we have got going on up here?
>> we answered those questions in our responses and provided all of the information we could get from every place that you asked for that we could obtain.
>> you don't know what the collection rate is in harris county?
>> I think I have tried to answer your question.
>> I think the answer is that you don't know what the collection rate is in Travis County.
>> if you will read our report, you will see the response from the harris county collector's office. It basically said the stuff that you were asking for was not in the form they could present it to you and we have tried to comply with any requests that you have made.
>> if I were to call mr. Bentoncourt and ask what is the collection rate in harris county, you are telling me an independent elected official in the largest county in the state of Texas, has no idea what his collection rate is? I bet he does.
>> I知 not telling you anything other than I will get you all of the information that I can if I can.
>> [indiscernible]
>> we have responded to all of the questions --
>> pull that mic towards you.
>> I知 sorry, sir.
>> > we responded to all of the questions asked in the r.f.p. Including collection rates for a number of jurisdictions. And if you want to take the 15 or 1600 jurisdictions or abouts that we represent in the state of Texas, some are better much, some are much worse. You are correct that the demographics do play a factor in any collection rate and the purpose of using Round Rock here was to demonstrate that by hiring our firm, you would not face the risk of greatly diminished collections. It was not to establish that our collections are superior to Travis County's by simply pointing out one jurisdiction.
>> this is the -- point this out. This is what we believe if you had a 20% reduction, the number would be in the fees that you would have for next year, a $549,000 reduction in the fees that would come in if it was comparable in the last year just because the school finance reform.
>> when we got to the point of -- of trying to -- I want to -- I want to acknowledge if you look at page 7, there's some just referred to as -- as another change that we haven't faced in prior years, but that we are not in the beginning of, we are in the middle of and it's -- it has the effect that I think Commissioner Davis was referring to. And it's what I refer to as the perfect storm. And that is tokts within our community where the rate of increase of appraisals is not just increasing like it is everywhere, but it's spiking in a remarkably extreme way. If you looked at -- I pulled the best that I could for about 20 months worth of foreclosed homesteads that were sold for tax sale. This is not a -- this is just the best that I could get. I think there was a two or three more that we couldn't find the files on. I wouldn't say this is a scientific, it's just the best that I could get from the clerk's office. It showed about -- this is 15 sample. If you will look out of the 15 that we could find in the last 20 or so months, look where the concentration of the foreclosed homesteads are. It is overwhelmingly on the east side. What -- what if you look not just, if you see this cluster over here, what I will refer to as central east Austin and you say well what -- what would a -- what would a look at those tell ya. It's not -- it's a snapshot of a few properties. But what it will tell you is this: it proves up in a microcosm what is happening in some sections of our community that haven't faced this historically. This is for that group of properties, you don't have to wonder why someone gets closer and closer for foreclosure. If you look at 178%, almost 3 times the appraisals for that group of properties. If you compare it, say well what's -- look here in 2003. That is where the world began to change dramatically in east Austin. And it no sign of letting up any time soon that I can see. It's like take the women and children off the streets, the yuppies have found east Austin. The skyrocketing appraisals you see it everywhere you go, every property. If you look at, well, the yuppies have found the rest of the town, too. And we are lucky so to have a very healthy economy and appreciating economy. Everybody's appraisals are going up. In the same five year, six year time frame, the average homeowner in Travis County had their appraisal go up 42%. That's remarkably high. But look at compared to the east Austin properties I just -- that got sold. Their appraisals over four times as high as the average homestead. Now this is not -- this is not what anybody in our system wants to see. That is selling off properties that are under that kind of pressure. But if you have to rely on a lawsuit only, you are going to have more unintended results like that.
>> ken, are you saying that the 10% cap on a rise in appraisals in any given year somehow is not helping the folks over in east Austin? Yeah, I agree. I think the prices are spiking over there. But they still have the advantage of the same 10% cap on a rise in an appraisal in any given here.
>> well, it not a very big advantage if you are in the fourth year already. And essentially the way that the effective tax rate works is a rising increase in your appraisal will not necessarily increase your taxes. And unless your rate of increase of appraisal is disproportionate compared to the rest of the community. What's happening is this -- these are so disproportionate that the 10% after a third year, like through next year the properties that are -- that beyond the 10%, they are appreciating at more than 10% a year, they are on a treadmill that by now next year it's 14, 16, 19%. Per year increase that cannot do anything, not just going up. It's the percentage increase that it goes up compared to your delta year of the beginning. So the 10% -- because it -- because it has a cumulative effect.
>> I don't disagree with you, but this is the turn around year that for the first time in many years, the -- the rate of appraisals represented to business far exceeds what's going on in residential. So finally it's going to turn around that with the effective tax rate, some people are going to see a leveling off or a dropping in their home tax bill and the big spike-a-roo is going to happen on the business side. It has not been that way. The rails for business has been less than for the county as a whole.
>> but if you are in --
>> therefore through the effective tax rate, even with every jurisdiction lowering the effective tax rate, people would see a higher rate because residential was outpacing the business community in terms of appraisals. That has now turned around this year. So it's not true for this next year.
>> what I think that you will find in the areas that have such spiking appraisals as this, they will exceed even the increases in business appraisals. But let me -- let me say something. I think that you would find that the small businesses all over this town would not think that it was a very -- it would be cold comfort to them to say, well, that -- that -- that don't worry about your home insteads, your business spike is going to be so extreme that -- that we'll just shift it over there. The point is if you are in a property, that is spiking that disproportionately, you are going to have effects and they will continue down the road and we are in that kind of cycle. Let me -- this -- this -- I知 going to try to finish up. If you look at it, this is a chart we tried to present several months back, it relates to the other element of what Commissioner Davis pointed out. If you looked at a number, for last year, if you looked at the expect, what is the 24%, the bottom quatrile for all of the properties in our community, that got sued, where are they? If you are suing so far down the value chain, that you are down into that bottom 25%, at such a volume, who are you suing? Well, who are you -- the who is east Austin. I知 going to -- going to say that -- that concludes a presentation with the exception of a couple of minor points and --
>> let me ask you this right quick before you move off that topic. So what would your firm do to reduce the number of lawsuits if we remain interested in collecting as much delinquent property taxes as possible?
>> well, I try to say at the bottom of page 12, get -- two or three things that we had put on the table, and that we are committed to. Number one is every community is different, in different places we try to do the outreach program in urban areas, it may be kiosks in the subway, it may be -- but the key is do you have the computer capacity to find people, identify them, connect with them, communicate with them, before it's too late. Now, that in an urban setting is a task. And the best intentions make it difficult. But -- but to get around the unintended consequences we are discussing, you just have to really be committed to it. It is hard to be fully committed to that if the very -- if the only thing that you can fund your system on is to -- to file a lawsuit first. We would try to do is maximize efforts and utilize community organizations to educate and outreach and -- and liaison with the county departments to do the same. And make that a focus of extreme upfront efforts prior to suit. The other thing, and I think those kind of -- that kind of approach I listed at page 13, what is a partial sample of the -- over the last year, there's been I think even delinquent tax collections for that last, you know, two or 3%. It's -- it's hard to -- to get through the details and penetrate even if small groups settings, much less for the whole community. It's not well understood. But I do believe when you see that -- that sitting in this room away from their jobs today, are people -- people, leaders in our community, that -- that have -- have looked at it enough to have opinions, I would hope that would matter. I would just draw your attention to that list.
>> hit quickly on page 13, also. I had said my boss we know every few years this issue is going to come back up in Travis County. It does for every county. May is the year, is the month every year where you decide to -- that you want to make any changes to your system. Every county is like that. Every city is like that. They can choose how they would modify it. This is the time frame, they look at it each year. I was not asked by my law firm to come back and make a proposal anything like that had ever been made before. We pledge without knowing the economics fully of what -- of what we would be bargained towards since we have said there's a range here, let's talk about what is the fair spot, the turnover date. But we pledged to address some of these things that at least $100,000 a year would be set aside from our fees into a hardship fund. It would not be administered by us, but by your designees for bridge assistance for the most needy cases. We -- we notified the court that part of our commitment would be to -- this is our national headquarters, and we -- we were committed to try to bring a national call center here with a platform jobs that are good paying jobs and that we would maximize our efforts to do that. I知 not sure it was fully understood or fully discussed in a way that I thought it was clear, but we made that commitment whether we get this contract or not. We said then, we say now, the more business we have in this community, of course the more expanded it will be, we will do the best we can, but that is a commitment that we made that those kind of jobs could be placed just about anywhere with the technology available today and we have chosen Austin and proud of it. Finally, I would say the revenue estimate issue, the appropriate family discussion, every budget year, includes revenue estimates. We were considering it so late in the budget year last year that a revenue estimate had no foundation of performance on which to base a -- a comparison for the following year. The advantage of making a decision in the may time frame is that you have a lot less guesswork. You will know if you have a comparable collection rate if you hire private firm and put it in place and if it performs comparably to the prior year, then you are going to have comparable revenue. There will be a few tweaks here and there. But one thing you might have a little less -- money coming in on court costs. If you consider that, you know, the kind of revenue that we want, you might see a little cut in that, that's generally the kind of revenue of course historically we don't want. We don't like to have lawsuits. We don't like to have more courts and more clerks and more expanded budgets and we don't like to charge people more fees on things that doesn't make us any money, we just have to spend the money to make that money. We are hopeful that if whatever private firm is hired, certainly ours, that the revenue estimate would be less of a dilemma by the time it got to the point of adopting a budget because you have hard numbers to compare it. That concludes our presentation and I defer to dale if he has any --
>> judge, I guess one of the things that is really trif convenient home to me sitting on this court, driven home to me sitting on this court, I love county government more than city or state government, I have only worked in two of them. But still it's real easy for me to get real involved in the budget here at the county and consider the -- the economy when it's slow we don't have any layoffs and people still can operate even on limited funds. And when we are doing really well, you know, then, you know, everyone does well. But out -- the economy does different things to different people. It -- it benefits those who are already doing fairly well. It punishes those who are not doing so well. So this is what -- the concern, I guess I consider myself lucky in being able to see both sides of that issue. Very clearly. Out in the community. I have a lot of folks who are -- who are now -- they know that east Austin, east of i-35 has been identified as a -- as a wonderful area where land is cheap and people can buy it and do all kinds of wonderful things. In this city for themselves and their friends and their family. And you know I don't think that would be -- I would be one of those people who would necessarily suffer from any of those things, but I would think that I would have some things going for me. But this sort of thing, I do hear from families who are up in arms because what do we do next? We are getting -- you talked to them about lawsuits. Well, if they had someone to reach out to them the very first time that they became delinquent and not let it go by -- I have seen cases where we've had 10 -- they have been held for 10 years, 10 lawsuits. On the property. And what are we waiting for? You know, that doesn't make sense to me. So something is not right with this deal and -- and I知 concerned here about those families who live east of i-35 and I think -- I think, you know, that I have the responsibility of trying to although at this issue a lot better, whether I get glares from people, whether I get accused of having money influence my decision. You know, all of those kinds of things are simply messages that I知 getting to back off, quit asking questions, the process is working the way we want it to work. Because it benefits more people than it hurts. I知 concerned about those people that it hurts. I think that I have always been concerned about everybody and at every level of society here in Travis County. And I知 not going to quit doing that. And this is very meaningful to me on page 10 and I want to learn more.
>> mr. Linebarger, any closing presents for the firm?
>> well, I just want to tell you specifically you asked the question of what we can do, without filing a lawsuit that now have to have lawsuits filed. And I think that part of what we bring to the table is the fact that we have probably the most extensive resources available to locate people and go out and talk to them that find the owners of the property and communicate with those people without having to file a lawsuit. We also, it's personal, as you know this is the headquarters of our firm and our firm is the largest firm in the united states that -- that -- whose practice is primarily devoted to collecting government receivables. You also probably are aware that our firm was one of three firms in the united states that was recently selected to collect for the internal revenue service. We are very proud of our record of collections and although my mother used to tell me that just because everybody else is doing it, doesn't mean you have to do it. The fact is every other county in Texas has private sized collections, they have found it very successful, we would hope that you would also consider that. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> a couple more questions.
>> Commissioner Sonleitner has questions.
>> on page 1, ken, you mentioned that, it's true, that only the private firms are allowed by law to utilize both 3348 and 3307. Would you have issues and would you fight us in -- in the state legislature to get law changed to allow both private firms and any public lawyers to -- to have access to 3307.
>> well, Commissioner Sonleitner, I don't run the legislature.
>> I知 asking whether your firm would fight attempts at the state legislature to extend 3307 to any county that chooses to collect its own taxes.
>> I wouldn't anticipate being involved in that. I would -- my response is the legislature has not taken the action you suggest because there are two attorney general opinions on point that says it would -- it is not the actions of the county official that is justified in taking the official duties and tacking on another fee in addition to all of the fees that the county is allowed to plus the statutory penalties on the -- on the delinquent tax. I think that's -- that's another debate and I would leave it up to the experts in the legislature. I don't think you will find a lot of support for changing -- in fact when I have been to the legislature and heard it discussed, the degree of chagrin is primarily that there would be any county that would emphasize lawsuits too early in the process. They think most places that -- that five months between February and July you use just about everything except a lawsuit except in the cases where it makes sense, where it the most delinquent in the largest count, the more difficult issues. But I -- I make no commitment either way on that.
>> if I were to ask auditors or county Commissioners or county judges in other counties where you all have contracts, would they tell me that they do not file lawsuits against poor people?
>> I -- I don't get the question exactly. And I think that you are at liberty to call any of our clients. I would ask you to look at the extensive list of clients that have written to you to say that we do a good job for them.
>> that wasn't the question. The question was are you under orders in any other counties where you collect taxes to not be aggressive and to not use lawsuits in order to get the dollars that are owed those jurisdictions.
>> well, I think that I can answer that question. There are -- there are -- there are a number of places where they instruct us not -- not to foreclose on homesteads. Most jurisdictions do not -- do not set such requirements. They leave it to our discretion. We report to them and have monthly meetings with photos of the properties and discussions with the elected officials before proceeding to foreclose on -- on a homestead which generally would be the nature of the property, which you discussed or are talking.
>> like any other attorney, we follow the constructions of the client.
>> if I were to take what you turned in to us last year and put it side by side with this document, are there any changes, material changes be it a date, be it anything in the proposal that you turned in, under a purchasing r.f.i. And what you have provided today?
>> nothing material. I think there's a different way of stating -- what the -- what the -- what the detail something is when you create a different document when you are trying to explain something but there would be nothing I know of material if there's a mistake made, that's always possible I guess, but I don't know of anything -- there's certainly nothing intended to be different. So if I were to put those things side by side, I really wouldn't find much of anything that's different from what you turned in under a purchasing rfi and what you have turned in today.
>> I知 certain that you would find a whole lot of things that you would call different. Maybe if you were inclined to interpret it in a way to come up with that kind of conclusion, but to my knowledge there's nothing different of materialty.
>> because others have not had the opportunity to -- to revise something under a purchasing procedure to change something they got turned in with deadlines, that would raise some interesting legal questions that I intend to ask in executive session. On page 13, you mention --
>> by the way there is a major disagreement over that statement. I think when we get best and final offer we do that all of the time.
>> on page 13, you have a number of supporters of your approach listed. So if I were to ask the black Austin democrats, for example, to get me the date of when that vote was taken amongst their membership, I would be able to find the minutes of that meeting?
>> it's kind of like the legislature, Commissioner. I don't run the black Austin democrats, I suggest that you address them about that. I think one of their -- maybe their presence here today or one of their officers, I don't know how they do business. I honestly put them in because I understood that they had actually come to a senate representative here earlier in the process and spoke in favor of making some kind of change of the type that we are suggesting.
>> if I saw this list of the naacp poder, greater Austin hispanic chamber of commerce, Austin urban league, I would certainly have the impression that these organizations took some kind of a record vote or their board of directors authorized their name to be used in this -- I see mr. Linder, I知 certainly going to get an answer to the naacp.
>> I defer. My listing is a good faith attempt to -- to reflect what I think is the truth and if I知 wrong, I will change it.
>> and in terms of you've got mayor garcia and former mayor bruce todd here, is mr. Todd still an employee of linebarger, he he is a consultant, has been for some years. To my knowledge he has no economic stake in this contract that I know of. But he has relationship as a consultant in other parts of the country and maybe other parts of the state.
>> the question is he an employee --
>> speaking for himself, too, I will defer to him.
>> my question was is he receiving financial compensation from your firm and the answer is yes if.
>> I believe so, yes.
>> is mr. Garcia.
>> not to my knowledge, no.
>> thank you very much.
>> I will answer that more than to my knowledge, mr. Garcia is not alleviated, an employee -- affiliated an employee or in any other way being compensated by our firm.
>> nice clarification to have.
>> if your testimony today if we were to look at the jurisdictions that you represent, the number of lawsuits that we file against low to moderate income households and geographically in the black and hispanic communities chiefly, your number would be much smaller than the number of lawsuits we filed here.
>> I guess I would need to look at the detail, but my impression is that we file so many we attain the same collection rates with so many fewer lawsuits, like I say, Travis County files two and a half times as much as nueces county which we represent. About four and a half times more than el paso, dallas, tarrant, per capita. That -- that I知 not aware of any kind of dispro portionnalty, I would report it if I am aware of it.
>> also -- I知 sorry, judge. But also I think I heard this at the -- if I知 correct just tell me yes. But as a policy directive, if the court in the later -- time line in this particular situation, determined that -- that they would like to maybe give you a shot at -- at delinquent tax collection here for Travis County, if I understood you correctly, you said that there are jurisdictions who -- who give you permission 7 I guess as far as foreclosures are concerned. In other words the policy directive from the court said well, you know, we've had a -- we have been getting beat up a lot in east Austin. We don't want to see any foreclosures come for those poor folks over there in the community. And we do not want to see foreclosures because I think that we can maybe work some kind of deal out to collect those back taxes. Is that something that's a possibility?
>> well, yes, sir in the sense that -- that the directive of the client to use greater sensitivity and every maximum effort prior to a lawsuit is -- is the type of instruction from a client entity that is not uncommon in every community is different, the challenges that they have is different, but -- but if you told us we want to see a lot greater effort to avoid that and before you do it on these categories, we would like to report on it and we would like more of an analysis before you put them into the system that once they are in it, it spits them out the other end sometimes without them, I don't believe, I didn't see a single one of these files that even had a lawyer.
>> Commissioner, the point, too, is -- is filing suit in the first place, you may not get the foreclosure, but you double the tax bill when you filed the lawsuit on the people least able to afford to pay their taxes.
>> on the poor. Again, I don't want to belabor the point, when I look at numbers, for example precinct 1. We look at the assessed tax value for 2004, and the recovery through lawsuits of those delinquent taxes, lawsuit plus the delinquent taxes on top of that, property, below $111,000, then precinct 1 for example, you are talking about 289 households, 35% of the total amount of households that's represented here. Precinct 4 has a little more, they have 317. 38%. So that's more than -- probably significant. That's -- that's of a -- 73% of the homes in that category of folks that -- that below $111,000.
>> that's right.
>> that's significant to me.
>> that's right. The other issue I would say is there -- there would still be a need for lawsuits.
>> I didn't say there wouldn't be.
>> when you -- when you instruct and set parameters your lawyer will follow them. But I値l tell you although at, you know, for these groups, everybody that's in the category we are talking about is a property owner.
>> got you.
>> these are people that generally you would think would provide the best hope, they are either small business or -- they are businesses with business personal property or they are -- they own some kind of property, they are not on an ad valorem tax roll. Basically the commitment is to work with the county and the county departments to -- to try to get off of the dependence of lawsuits and do the best and see how it works.
>> thank you.
>> okay.
>> thanks. Did you decide to wait until next week, sir.
>> take you up on your offer to have the opportunity to prepare for responses.
>> okay.
>> [indiscernible] that we had today.
>> that would be fine.
>> others have come down on this item. This is your opportunity. To address the court. If you choose to do so. If not we would be happy to get your comments next week. If you want to comment today, we have five seats available. If you give us your full name, we would be happy to get your comments.
>> judge, my name is nelson linder, president of the Austin naacp. I知 late, I知 running late, be very brief and to the point. If you observe page 2 and 3 and 4, I知 not going to read those, I think that you have read them already, among inequities on three and negative consequences and [indiscernible] appraisals on four, this is a much bigger issue than what we have talked about for today. For example as Commissioner Davis stated this is unfair, it links directly to the 14th amendment. If we can prove that in fact these policies over the years have cost folks their homes, poor, black and brown people, leave this city and go through negative consequences, you have got a constitutional issue ms. Sonleitner, not just unfair, but this is actually due process and equal protection under the law. So this is much bigger issue here than just us talking about what firm does it best. We are talking about folks that have been harmed, displaced, and in many cases lives destroyed. In addition to that, in that area you have double digit unemployment. Clearly if you don't have a job or you suffer -- [indiscernible] quality of life, that's going to affect how you pay your taxes, these people are suffering from a whole lot of issues that we aren't addressing here that link directly to the quality of life. Back to the big picture, if in fact this policy which is very arbitrary has caused unfayness to folks to that extent, unfairness, you have a strul problem. As head of the naacp, we are very concerned about east Austin, changed or shaped by policies of that has -- that might be disparate treatment from a legal standpoint. I would encourage you Commissioner Sonleitner and the court in general to begin to address how this process affects the people themselves, most of them just a process. When you said you created a process called gentrification, you forced black folks and brown folks to go to Pflugerville and manor, other towns, that is a human issue. If you have got a human bone in -- humane body in your body, it's a higher legal. If in fact you are presenting policies that cause unfair treatment that's constitutional. There must be a consequence. So then the naacp we are very concerned about how this process has impacted not only growth in east Austin, but in fact folks have been displaced all over this city. I would assure you once you start calling folks and talking to them, they are going to tell us, due process, the county doesn't do a good job of talking to people, I can tell you that. When you take these cases individually, look at what they didn't have, resources and proper representation, you have a major issue on your hands in terms of liability. So I would say from the humane standpoint, I want to thank the law firm to doing the research and number two reaching out to the community. In my opinion nobody has called us ever about these issues. If nothing else they have done a great job of mobilizing folks, sharing information and bringing a humane issue. In closing this final point, unfairness, let's look at the 14th amendment and talk about due process and equal protection under the law. I ask you, ms. Sonleitner, the whole court, if this process is not constitutional, then why in fact are we doing it? If we are doing it, it's caused folks to destroy their lives, what's the end result of that process? Thank you for your time. Please do the right thing.
>> thank you, mr. Linder, questions.
>> can -- did you get a copy of the report that was done by the county that [indiscernible] to the issues, did you get a copy.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> have you been able to meet with anybody to get a further explanation as to I think that are very good questions that you have just raised there as to what do the numbers really mean?
>> well, actually we -- I have some understanding of that, let me tell you what I think the biggest point is, my own personal opinion. The county to me is not very responsive to folks in the community. This is my own personal opinion for the past six years, very difficult time getting folks to come out and talk to us on eye level. I can tell you as well, the folks below us certainly don't have that opinion. I would say the county does a much better job of number one communicating and also coming down to people's level making folks feel humane. That's a major problem. That's why I think we need help on this issue, clearly in the past you haven't really done this in terms of mobilizing the community. Hopefully we can learn. That if you got private public collaboration, that's really the best of both worlds. I think that's the thing of the future. In reality if we do the right thing, this can become a win-win situation.
>> when mr. Oden was the county attorney, decome out and visit with your organization and do a good job of communicating with you?
>> at the time I was not the president so I cannot answer that question. I can tell you that this has been an issue for quite some time. I think he deserves all of the credit for pursuing it the way he has. Based on my research the issues are very, very clear, disparities are there. In east Austin the evidence is very, very visible. Beyond your personal agendas, although at east Austin, what do you think occurred there. It wasn't a hurricane, deliberate policies that had a disparate impact on the community. That ought to be our concern as least from my standpoint of the naacp this is no the a civil rights issue. Just be aware of that. I知 going to go back to work and make some money go thank for you your time, no further questions.
>> thank you, sir.
>> thanks for coming up, appreciate your --
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> my name is richard franklin, I知 the president of the black Austin democrats, also the vice chair of the coalition of shared governance and I think what we are having is a conversation about what's happening happened in the past, personality. For some reason I almost can laugh when we have to justify what we know to be true. As we drive through east Austin we see a lot of problems that aren't being addressed, haven't been addressed for some time we are going the wrong direction. I知 hoping we can get past that and stop working together as we forward and find new ways and new inventive ways to work together, think our way out of these problems, I feel like going to a private firm and having them do the collections on this situation not having to slap that additional downward pressure of the burden of having the lawsuits filed on someone will allow us to put a contract in place that will then allow to us do some -- some new and inventive things with that new contract. I discussed this with the people earlier, they thought it might be a good idea to even explore the idea of possibly talking to the people and the communities such as the non-profits, the churches, community groups, neighborhood associations. And tied that to the contract if you do decide to do that. In hopes that we can also find some other ways to keep people in the homes and maintain the neighborhoods. So I知 here in support of this scenario in hopes that you would at least have a look at that. If you do decide to give this to a private firm, maybe look at that as one of the things tied to that. That's the only reason that I am here. Shared governance coalition as we go forward is looking for ways to get out of the problems that we have developed.
>> greater collaboration between the and community.
>> absolutely.
>> okay.
>> mr. Franklin are you speaking as an individual or did -- was there a record vote of the black Austin democrats or the officers of that club?
>> shared governance coalition?
>> actually, I知 asking about black Austin democrats.
>> we have not had a vote on that. On this issue. But we will -- we will be discussing this next week at a meeting, we will be taking a vote against.
>> you did ask the candidates as we appeared before you about how we could improve this whole situation because it is a -- it is a serious issue and I believe that -- that outreach is needed between -- by the county, county officials to the community and that's one of the things that I think we can work on with you.
>> it's -- we have been discussing at length. Ad nauseam at this point. Theoretically the bottom line is that the community has to communicate with the elected officials, get more involved start cooperating with one another. We have to get involved, think our way out of these problems, we have a lot of talent in the community just not utilizing it. As I値l get to answer your question specifically, the black Austin democrats has not take place a vote on it specifically. But we will address it initially next week. I don't think you have actually made anything yourself to say this is what you are going to do. The coalition we have already discussed it and made our decisions.
>> the contract aside you would welcome the opportunity to work with county officials on any part of interest to the community I take it.
>> absolutely.
>> what we have always tried to do, I don't know as far as communicating with the community my office produces a quarterly newsletter, we get that out pretty frequently. Very informative, a lot of things that do happen and go on in Travis County. So the line of communication has been established and has been opened. We try to --
>> I am hoping we can open up more lines of communication. That's been the issue. I run -- a morning program on Thursdays on the [multiple voices]
>> let me finish, please. What you are saying is the line of communication has been established for my office, I don't know what anybody else is doing, I know that we send out a quarterly newsletter to the neighborhood groups and things of that nature, informing what's going on in Travis County. We have been doing that for quite a -- well for quite a while. Of course it's good pertinent information there. We have gotten good responses and replies from persons that have used this information to take forward to the community. So -- so I致e -- I would say well we don't, you know, the line of communication has been established.
>> I don't want to be misunderstood. I truly believe that we are opening up more lines of communication. I know that we are trying to develop that relationship. I think what we are doing now is trying to break down the barriers of that communication, the barriers have been set for years. That's what we are looking at right now, how do we open up more lines of communication, find ways to work with one another.
>> the door could be opened more.
>> Margaret you have already been asked about this during your question and answer period with black Austin democrats. I wasn't, I don't know if my opponent was in my race as well. It was not a question that came up during my question and answer session.
>> it came up for me, I was glad to discuss with them my opinion of what needs to improve. So that we don't have to put people out of their homes and then here we are on the other side trying to get people into homes.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> eng the Commissioner said it best. Certainly Margaret was definitely on the money with it. In our meetings we have brought these kind of issues up. What we're afraid of more than anything else is the future. As we project growth and as we -- as these appraisals continue to skyrocket. What is it going to mean to the people of color in any part of the county regardless. There's where we're at. There's where the rubber meets the road. And we're looking at, hey, if we can do a better job with elected officials than the private sector, then us in the community who have the community in mind, then we can be able to solve some of these situations on a case-by-case basis. And if I know for a fact that some of you have took it under your wing and taken it on one on one when it's come to your attention. And that's what we're wook looking for, we're looking for more avenues of being able to do that. And I think we can reach that if we continue to work together. I really appreciate the Commissioners court taking time to listen to us simply because we bring the community's heart and mind, and that's where we're at. Thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> any questions?
>> have you seen the report from Travis County?
>> I have not and I値l be glad to look at it.
>> I値l help you get a copy. Thank you.
>> I値l be looking at it.
>> yes, sir?
>> honorable judge and honorable members of the Commissioners court, my name is jeffrey richard. I am the president and coe was Austin area urban league, but I have several other hats that I should acknowledge and say in a what capacity I am here today. I知 here -- I知 an economist and taught statistics and most recently taught at the graduate level for Texas state university, and I知 also an elected official, an officer and a board member, secretary of the Austin community college board of trustees. I am here in none of those capacities, however, but I think all of them may bring some credibility to what I say. I am here as a (indiscernible). I am a policy analyst. I have a master's degree in public policy. Have studied housing issues for a number of years. What I want to talk to you about are statistical effects. And just to be clear, I知 not here as president of the urban league, because we have a certain process that we go through, it goes through a committee process, and then you make positions. I must tell you that when I learned about this issue almost a year ago I was prepared to go to my board and to talk with them about this issue, but it has been delayed and changed and modified and modified, and I知 not sure exactly how I can address a moving target. So I知 here simply as a person who thinks about these things.
>> you did receive a special invitation.
>> and I did receive an invitation from the judge. That is why I知 here. Is this thing on?
>> it is.
>> I壇 like to highlight seven items, and I値l try to be dispassionate about them because I think that's the way we can see most clearly. Item number one, is tax collection a good thing to collect delinquent taxes for the county. I think the answer to that is question. If that is the case, then number two, can the county, this county, or any other county in Texas, collect taxes the same way as a private collector? That is no according to what I have read and studied in two attorney general's opinions. Number three, is there a benchmark? If you were a consultant and said who does this like we do it, we do benchmarking in a lot of other places. There's a Texas association of counties, national association of counties, and we looked at the national league of cities to see how other people are doing things in best practices. If I were to ask myself is there a benchmark for how this works in Travis County with any other large metropolitan county, I would have to say probably not. Which then says to me why not? Number 4, if the intent of public policy is mean spirited, if the intent has bad results, I think we would all agree that it is the responsibility of policymakers to change that. If we intend to do harm on purpose, I think we would agree with that. But number 5, what if the effect of a policy decision has the same disproportionate or mean effect or result on a given population? That is, I must say that the current county attorney is a friend of mine. We were in leadership Austin together. I consider him a friend, and no one questions the integrity of that individual, nor of in my opinion the tax assessor collector. But I知 not talking about intentions, I知 talking about effects. And so if the effect is still disproportionate, do not policymakers also have a similar responsibility to mitigate or ameal your rate those? Number 6, is equity at least as important as financial return? Is it at least as important? And I think the answer to that would be yes. And so number 7 for me, I am here and I知 happy to come next week, I知 happy to come to talk with you further about this. I知 here not to represent or support or endorse any particular private solution. It's not my point, not my position, not my intention and it won't be my effect. My here if you have another speaker, another private sector firm, let them speak and my arguments would simply be the same. This is not so much about who you select as to what and whether you change your processes for policy reasons. And I think that needs to be clear from my point of view. If what I have red is even 10 or 20 or 15 percent accurate in terms of the disproportionate impacts, and you saw the graphics, if that is even close to being true, it seems to me we have an obligation to find out why that is, and if we can do something about it, to then do something about it. We already live in a very litigious society. There are certain statements of fact that can be disputed, and I壇 like to understand them better, but if it is a fact that before the county can retrieve any of its funding, penalties and taxes and sort of fee that it must first file a lawsuit, then in economics we say that creates a an incentive to file a lawsuit. It doesn't create an incentive to work things out before you file the lawsuit. And I知 all for -- and rodney king said, can't we all get along? I知 all for getting along when you can. And when you can't, certainly the legal option is available. It's this sort of thing that causes people like me to think about what is happening even if our intentions are quite honorable. Thank you.
>> questions?
>> maybe I知 just not getting something here. If people poor can't pay their tax bills to the public tax collector who will put them on a payment plan, work with that person long before it ever gets to a lawsuit, how is it that we think that these same folks will be able to pay off their tax bill to a private collector that not only will be charging what ms. Spears has to charge related to the penalties that are invoked by state law, but the private firms get to tack on 15 to 20 percent in penalties when that thing goes to a lawsuit or not, without a lawsuit f you don't have the money to pay the tax collector, why do we think they're going to have the money to pay a private firm that can tack 15 to 20 percent more on top of that? I知 not getting something here.
>> that's an excellent question, Commissioner Sonleitner. I think it's an excellent question and I would have the same question. Here's the answer I have. It is not a matter of when -- not a matter of whether either the county or a private collector can issue the judgment fee, it's when. It's a term line issue. Maybe it's a question of fact that somebody else can dispute. It's something I read, and I tend to believe it. By January or forward, everybody almost is going to pay their property taxes, almost everybody, whether you have private or public. So we're in the high 90's or 80's, we're making a b plus without even trying. So the question is what can you get in the delta from late January, February to July? It's a timing issue. And if the answer to that is still almost everybody still pays whether you sue them or not, then the question to me is why sue them? And if the answer is we sue them because we have to sue them in order to get the fees for that, I think that is a perverse incentive. So the only thing that's remaining then is that very small number of people who won't pay even if you give them all the time in the world, and those I believe one can legitimately and justifiably reserve the brunt of the legal system for those. Those are I would say perhaps the worst of the worst. I wouldn't say they necessarily are the poorest of the poor, but those are the people who haven't talked, who are hard to find and so forth. A poor person today can do a payment plan, and my point is that they can do that payment plan for a very long time unless there's an incentive for them to be sued early. And that's what this is about as far as I can tell.
>> did you get a copy of the county's report?
>> I was made aware of it and I downloaded it from the web. I have read a few pages of it. It is 200 something pages. I will say that I have read the previous information that was last year and I read it thoroughly. I read every world. But I haven't read all of that.
>> was that information from the other firms or that information from Travis County that you read before?
>> I think I got it from the -- I got it from the other firm. I got something from the attorney general's opinion and I have those, and I read those.
>> we would love for you to read Travis County's report.
>> I would be happy to. I would say that these same questions I would apply them against that matrix and I値l ask it again and we'll see what the answer is.
>> good evening, my name is susana almanza. I知 co-director of poder. And I just want to bring out some very important points and factors here because we've been looking at the whole issue of gentrification since the late '90's and have been doing a lot of work at the city council bringing that information at the city council level, but also in our 2001 report, we looked at the foreclosure rates and we found out at that particular part -- I believe, because I don't have the report in front of me, it was 74% of the foreclosures had taken place in east Austin. And ij one of the things that we really have to recognize is that when we were doing the city of Austin neighborhood plans which broke up the city into 52 districts that 67% of the households in east Austin were homeowners. They already had finished paying their houses. Because one thing you have to remember is when the city did the master plans in the early 30's and moved what I call all the people of color to the urban reservation, these houses were from 2,000 to $18,000 in value. And so these people, the people there, including my family, are now homeowners and have been homeowners for a long period of time. And the other thing that we realize are the caps. A lot of people think just because they're homestead they don't have to pay taxes forever. But really if you were capped at 50,000 and now your house is valued at 150,000, you're going to pay the difference. For the first time in I think it was about four years when we were out doing the forums and the workshops with the people, we ran across many people, many elderly who lived on fixed income, and not the incomes where they have 401 k plans and stuff. They live on social security. And because they were low wage earners, very small amounts of social security. And so for the first time they were receiving bills, there were 360 something dollars. They had gone over the cap. So now they were actually owing property taxes for the first time in their life and they thought they were exempt from paying property taxes. And so I think that that's something that people really have to recognize in east Austin and realize what's happening now with the foreclosures because then you begin to get those increases when you don't pay your taxes. And when you live on a fixed income, it's very hard to pay taxes, especially when you don't have the money to pay taxes. The other thing is we've now had a large group of elders who have passed away, so you had houses that they bought 2 to $18,000 and they're now valued at 150 to $400,000, and their children are now being stuck with those huge amount of taxes, something that they never imagined in their lifetime. And when we looked at the tax base, just looking at the cesar chavez area, we saw that there had been an increase of single-family housing in just two years, they had seen a 400% increase in their tax values, 123% increase in their taxes. So you always see, even when we saw 10 years ago, that all of Austin had received a seven to 11 percent tax increase and we're now seeing, I think, 23%, we've always seen Austin do the double digit in their taxes. So there has been an extreme amount of tax increases in east Austin, even our businesses. We saw it early in 2000 when we saw a lot of the people who could no longer afford to keep their businesses and lost their businesses for tax reasons. So we have seen this as part of the whole issue of what's been happening as we looked at the foreclosures and we saw how people were continuously being sued, especially the poor people. People in precinct 1, as to what really happening when you looked at east Austin and you saw the foreclosure rate and you had to take into account all the other things that were happening. 67% of the people owned their home out right, they lived on fixed income, they were now having to pay taxes or they had just passed away and left it to their children and now their children were left with huge amounts of taxes to pay. So you have to look and take into account all of these situations that are happening. And you wouldn't know it if you didn't live there. If you lived there and you talked to everyone and you knocked door to door and you just went to meetings on different issues and people tell you about the hardships that are happening to east Austin and how it's happening, you know that the system is unfair. That there's been a disproportionate amount of not only the burden of taxes that people have taken on in east Austin, but the burden of toxic pollution, of all the unwanted facilities that have been put in our communities and how over the decade we've now began to clean that up and now we've made those areas very attractive to the high paid professional people and the impact that that has caused on east Austin and how this is a total -- we saw in clarksville what happened to african-american families where there was 100% african-american community, what happened there. It's happening now to east Austin. And we have to do something to bring the burden of the tax relief and we have to do something to address the issue of whether it's a combination of private and public, or I don't care what it is, but the fact is there is an issue out there and that poor people and people of color are being disproportionately impacted and something has to be done to address this issue. And so I hope that y'all study it very firmly. I don't want to know whether I read the report or if my group took a vote. That's secondary. There's a life or death issue that's happening in east Austin. People are losing their homes for generations. And it's not just their home, it's their whole culture being lost, it's their whole sense of community being lost. We know how it feels when you no longer can walk to your grocery store, you can no longer go to your church, you can no longer see your neighbors or you have to drive across town because we've seen the impact. We knew what sustainable communities were before this city even thought about it because we had them because we were forced to happen because we weren't welcome on the other side of town so we created our own sustainable communities and now those things have been broken up. So I just ask you to look at those issues and study them hard and make a change. And the present policy isn't working and it's impacting the working poor and communities of color. Thank you.
>> for the record, have you gotten a copy of the report? It's just meant to be making sure that you've gotten all the information that's available. And I値l take that as a no.
>> anybody else? I致e got two former elected officials with me. I think we ought to impose a time now. [ laughter ] you're from the city. I know you're used to three minutes down there, aren't you?
>> [ inaudible ].
>> I値l exercise my right as an older mayor, and speak first. And I want to say thank you first. They list me here as a former mayor. I知 also a former school board member, community college member, president of the board of the Austin independent school district, and of the Austin community college board. So I致e worn many hats. And I see your role as fiduciary, one of you have the fiduciary responsibility of collecting taxes for all these entities. So your responsibility goes beyond just your job as county Commissioners. The last time I was here I was concerned because a report came down -- I think it was a staff report -- that talked about the fact that you all were going to have to make some cuts because of the projections that have been done by some of the staff analysis. I知 not sure that any of that information was relayed to the school district who would be impacted the same way or to the city. But that report not being -- not being discussed now mitigates my concerns. But I do -- and besides being a former member of the school board, I am a former husband of a school teacher. And the reason I bring this up is because school teachers -- and she taught in east Austin -- struggle with the dilemma of students that move from one area to the other because they lose their homes. My wife always complained about the fact -- not complained, but she always noted the fact that students would come in in the middle of the year and then leave. So it's enormously important that in setting policy for collecting taxes that you consider the effects that it has on school districts. The other day some of you, I think Commissioner Davis, you were at the groundbreaking of the gus garcia middle school in northeast Austin. The school district is investing upwards of $21 million in that school and we want to build a strong neighborhood in which one that people can come and own their homes there. It's important that we keep the best tax collection method so to encourage people to stay there. So finding a better way to collect taxes and to keep people in their homes I think is part of the responsibility that you have as fiduciary fiduciary -- members of a fiduciary group in this particular endeavor. The city also has put in place a planning process. We have been planning neighbor by neighbor. And when it comes to the neighborhoods in east Austin, they all have talked about this issue of gentrification. How do we work, how do we make plans, and so I think that in making your decisions you should consider what it is that that entity, the city of Austin, is contemplating in all their plans that they're doing in the neighborhoods. I don't know, judge, and Commissioners, if you have had an opportunity to visit with the members of the staff that work with neighborhoods and their planning processes, but I think it would be an interesting process for you as you contemplate this particular issue. I appreciate -- and let me say and let me close, sir, because you asked the question, Commissioner Sonleitner, so, I知 not compensate bid anybody on this one. I知 here basically as an interested citizen. My interest to this one goes all the way back to when judge aleshire was tax collector assessor, and we talked about putting all the jurisdictions -- when the Travis County central appraisal district came online, putting all the jurisdictions together. I知 interested in doing things the best way possible for our people. That's how we can keep our community strong. But no, I知 not getting paid by linebarger or by anybody else and I don't think I would accept any. I don't think this is something that I am doing that would benefit their position. I知 more interested in how it is that it benefits the people of this community. So thank you very much for the opportunity to be here, and I haven't read the report, but I致e listened to some of the things that have been said here. Thank you very much, judge and Commissioners.
>> mayor, I -- you still reside in precinct 1, I hope?
>> absolutely. Been there for a long time.
>> I definitely want to make that ribbon cutting ceremony. When is that supposed to be?
>> that school will open in the fall of 2007.
>> I want to be there for that ribbon cutting.
>> there's another school in that area coming online. [overlapping speakers] which will have a city facility right next to it.
>> it's moving right along. Thank you, mayor.
>> thank you very much.
>> I think you meant to say that your current wife was a former teacher as that your former wife was a teacher.
>> I always misspeak. [ laughter ]
>> I didn't know he was married before.
>> I speak two languages, so sometimes it gets messed up. You wouldn't understand that.
>> that's okay. [ laughter ]
>> let's go to a single language person. [ laughter ]
>> well, I am bruce todd and I just have a question for my colleague, the mayor. Were you referring to me as the older mayor or did I misunderstand that? And I do want to know, Commissioner, when the mayor goes to this school, will they do the same thing they do to willie kocurek and ask him if he owns the school? I want to know what your answer will be?
>> absolutely. Absolutely. It's in precinct 1, I live there with Commissioner Davis. [ laughter ]
>> first of all, let me thank all of y'all for your time today. This is an important topic. And it's one that I think offers great possibilities for the county if pursued correctly, monitored correctly and implemented properly. I am a consultant for the linebarger firm and have been for almost a decade now, but not in Texas. It's been primarily in cities around the country. Some are very similar to you. Their county government structures can be. Some are different. But they've found repeat ways to serve those communities. I would name a couple particularly. Chicago, which I participated in, and dallas, which I did not. Those two cities were given -- those two cities and the linebarger firm were given awards by the u.s. Conference of mayors for the best public-private joint ventures that particular year. And that was a history that the linebarger firm is rightfully proud of, the cities are rightfully proud of, but they were a result of the public and private sector working very well together, adhering to the strength of either and making the system work. I have had these kinds of conversations in cities from west coast to east, and I find that there is a common theme, and that is to find a procedure and a supplier that provides for the best asset and resources for community to do what is a necessary job to do, which is to collect the monies, to spend the monies in an appropriate way to make life a better place for all of us in those counties. I壇 also talk a little bit about philadelphia. That particular city requested and the linebarger firm offered to set up a taxpayer assistance section in the subways. And that has been particularly effective because as we know, the burden of taxation as well as the burden of other costs falls disproportionately on those who have lower income, but it is that kind of system that speaks affirmatively to addressing the needs of the people and their ability to address the financial information in such a ways to to make it a much more positive experience than it would otherwise be. I would close by saying I have known members, mr. Linebarger and others of the linebarger firm, for a much longer time than I have been a consultant. And I have never found a client that is more adept at listening to, working through and adopting the measures that make the government they serve more effective, more efficient in what they do. And again, the systems vary widely whether it's one state versus the other, but the common thread remains. It is how to project equity and fairness and assistance to those who are -- do not have the greatest resources to make this a viable system for them. And I think that's a very important thing and speaks very highly of the firm of the lawyers that work there, of the callers who call to make collection efforts and all that's concerned with the collection of those taxes. They've done a very, very good job that should you choose to go that route you will be very proud of them as the years go on. Thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, mayor. Iks I want to say what a pleasure it is to see you back at work.
>> thank you. As they say, I知 on the right side of the divets. Judge, I think you know that phrase. We certainly appreciate your time and teajs to this very important matter.
>> thank you.
>> anybody else? Okay. Next week we'll have a presentation for the other firm and -- what's the name of the other firm again?
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> and are you mr. Pursue?
>> no, I am not.
>> purdue, brandon and mott. We'll skip all that middle if you don't mind.
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> have you read the report? [ laughter ]
>> I have to reread it. I read it last time. You may want to take a look at it and see if you would like to change parts of it or clarify anything.
>> will do, judge.
>> now, it does seem to me clear, though, that there is a matter of money. And I guess for mike the question in the auditor's office the question is whether the -- mr. Wickham, comments?
>> I just want to make shawr -- to get clear what you're anticipating you want us -- what questions you have that you want answered from the county staff. I got from you -- the two that I知 aware of is the hybrid proposal or the other proposal from linebarger. I just wanted to touch real briefly on that for a second. We can discuss is next week. It was brought up today and it was brought up after we made our presentation that we didn't analyze that proposal when in fact we did. We didn't include it in your report because our report was pretty big already, and we said in that that we put each law firm in the best possible light. In order, we took and put in there their proposal that was the best for Travis County. That particular proposal we analyzed and it came out to be worse, so we did not include it. We have met with each -- the week after we did that presentation we met with each commission -- an aide from each Commissioners office on this issue and distributed that information as well as some additional information on the lawsuits. Commissioner Sonleitner, I misspoke, we did not meet with an aide from your office, but we did meet with every other Commissioner's aide and the judge's as well and distributed some information then. The analysis on the proposal that mr. Odom was talking about, it was I think in the neighborhood of $800,000 worse for the county than the one that we put in the report. We'll be glad to go over that one today or next week if you would prefer.
>> next Tuesday would be better.
>> this is already the longest short discussion I致e seen at Travis County.
>> I agree. Do you have another copy of what you --
>> I can get those and distribute them again to you, no problem at all.
>> that would help me out.
>> there was a write-up, there was a spreadsheet with that analysis on it and there were some additional charts with information on the lawsuits.
>> something that even a county official should maybe understand?
>> I hope so. I tried my best.
>> okay.
>> and other than those two issues, I didn't get any other questions or things that you would like people for the county to be ready to talk about next week. Was there somebody else?
>> I think it boils down to money, so the question would be what revenue impact, if any, would either proposal have? Kind of hard to do that analysis for purdue between now and next week if there are changes.
>> we're sticking with analyzing what made in the original proposals. There's no way we could do this all over again. Clearly the linebarger firm made two proposals in their original proposal and we analyzed both of them and put the one in that we thought was best for the county. So I can -- we already have the materials to discuss the other proposal, but if you're asking us to go back and try and look at new proposals from either firm, we spent 2200 hours doing this in the first place and I can't commit us to -- depending on what the proposals are, to really looking at it anymore.
>> do you think that what presented in court today by linebarger fers the same thing or something new?
>> I thought it was the same as what we've already analyzed and given to your staff, so I feel like we could redo that very quickly next week if you would like.
>> as far as copies, make sure we see it between next Tuesday --
>> I need to make copies of it and gather it back together.
>> there may be some slight differences, but nothing substantive than what turned in last summer, which we have indeed analyzed, and --
>> if that's the case, we don't need -- we have not gotten as far as I know, no one that analyzed any of this for you got a copy of what talked about today. But it doesn't sound like it's necessary if it's the same things from the last time we've already analyzed.
>> I壇 like to give that to you. Do you have other copies? What you gave us today? It's just two or three pages. We may be able to look at it in 10 minutes. If so, I think it's just a matter of us reviewing the analysis you made last time, especially when you shared with our assistants. We preach for them to be more accountable and autonomous, maybe they went too far last time.
>> if you remember, we had a pretty long discussion in the court, I知 sure y'all do. And we tried to make appointments with y'all again and I think you really had other things going on other than that, so we ended up talking with your assistants, or at least one from each office.
>> okay.
>> except for Commissioner Sonleitner, I should say.
>> I think the judge is correct. It all boils down to the money. It is the auditor's office that generates the revenue estimate. It's not one revenue estimate, that is a number that evolve. As we move further and further through the process, but it is certainly something that in terms of a premise for the basis of that revenue estimate, there's a number in there that right now priewmz in-house collections -- there is a long established history and therefore the auditor can very distinctly put a dollar amount attached to that. If it is something different, small, medium or large, positive or negative, that is something that we need to surface because if there is a difference -- difference in that, then christian has more, less or the same amount of money in which to base the preliminary budget.
>> there's no question -- we're comfortable with the analysis that we've done. And there's no question if you go down a different path and chose one of the proposals that we would end up certifying significantly less revenue at that time.
>> I think we need to see it -- I致e forgotten how you arrived at your total.
>> we'll go over that again next week too as well?
>> yes.
>> second main issue -- that is number one. Number two is a public policy question about fairness and equity. And I think we need to look at exactly who we sue, why, what, if anything, we can do differently.
>> the bottom line of all of this I really think is do we think we can generate close to the same rate of collection from those who are late -- very, very late payers without filing a lawsuit? The law unfortunately puts a whole lot of pressure on counties to file a lawsuit because that's how we get the fees.
>> but that's not the priority that's used. And really I知 not the appropriate person. Dusty probably needs to come up here because I can echo what ken said earlier. We're just your lawyer. We'll sue whoever the client is instructing us to sue. Again, our office doesn't make the decisions on who gets sued, but I think that's something for y'all to consider. I think it's a good thing. I知 sure speaking for nelda is she's always told me in the past she's open for that discussion and welcomes it. As for her policies as to when to decide to sue and when not and open with the Commissioners court to discuss that. What it remind me is it get to the hybrid system, a lot of those discussions really hit home with me. And we could argue against fairness. I think that's probably appropriate thing for the court to have high on their agenda to acleave through this process, but it really will come down to whether we have a hybrid system or we don't, we need to start take making the decisions on who we sue is the same person doing it now. So the real discussion is what's our policy? Not necessarily do we go outside? That's a separate question. The question I heard today that was asked is really a review of our policy for when we sue and when we don't? Nelda is a key player in that and these open and welcomes discussion with y'all on that and anything I can do to facilitate that, count me in for.
>> the other thing would be as one of our speakers indicated, if we are having an undesired affect, what, if anything, can and should we do to change it? Now, to be honest, the discussion in the summer did bring to my attention, you know, just who we were suing. And at some point, I guess, you have to ask yourself is it enough to say they owe the money so we sue them, period? And I知 having a hard time concluding that it's enough to say that.
>> no. And I understand. If you go through your report, your study that was done, you'll see not only did they do the financial analysis, they did an in-depth review of the process, and they've got a process review as well in there. And you can find the policies that nelda's office uses before they get to it. So it's not you owe the money and then we sue. There's a long detailed process that's taken up and a priority list before we even get to the lawsuit. But again, those are the issues I think that nelda has said she'd certainly be interested in discussing with you.
>> that information is in the --
>> it's in the report.
>> it's in the 215 page report.
>> the same report we had in court last summer?
>> yes, sir. I do have some additional information on lawsuits that we did share with your aides and I will distribute that as well and we can discuss it if you would like next week.
>> okay.
>> if that's what you want. I値l be prepared to do that if that's what -- I知 kind of asking because I don't want to --
>> let me look at it.
>> those are the two big issues. You made reference to a couple of legal questions that you would like to ask legal counsel today?
>> it can wait until next week.
>> I have one more that I need to ask somebody today. It seems to me with the time lines required by law, etcetera.
>> and I値l ask mine the same day so we don't stretch it out.
>> after the next session or it depends on if you intend for the court to ask that question. I think it is unfair to find out what we do and the bottom line to all this discussion is you have to read a 215-page report. That's not fair. And it seems to me that we also need to be able to make available to folks in a much shorter version, kind of like put it on a bumper sticker and make it easy for folks to understand the gist of that 215-page report.
>> there is an executive summary to that. That's part of it. But I shudder to tell you that it's about 70 pages of the 215. But it's a complicated issue and it would be unfair as well, though, to try and not give you all the information and try and shade it one way or the other. One of the things -- it was interesting listening to the concerns that people have that I didn't necessarily take into account when we're looking at the numbers, but one of the things that was kind of rolling through my head as I was listening to that is there really isn't -- it doesn't matter whether you collect it here at Travis County or with a law firm. Those issues you can address either way and you don't really need a private contract for collection to address issues of, you know, gentrification or issues like that or raising -- people not being able to afford their property taxes or not being able to afford their property taxes. And some things came to mind just while I was listening to some of those that have nothing to do with whether we should contract this out or not.
>> and clearly it seems like if there is more outreach by the independent elected officials, I can't tell them how to do their job, but anyway -- if there needs to be more reaching out to community groups, clearly there is a disconnect here and perhaps 215 pages is too much, perhaps 70 pages is too much, but I would welcome the opportunity being taken by ms. Spears and david to get on the lecture circuit and start visiting folks that you go see them rather than they be expected to come here.
>> well said. And I think you heard from two of the people that sat up at the table earlier that mentioned me by office, I think, that those people if you question them would say that I did reach out to them, come to them months and months ago. They remembered that, oh, yeah, you came to me. And when I致e talked to them. And so now here we are to talk about it again.
>> but the people I referred to are the taxpayers who get sued.
>> as well. [overlapping speakers]
>> you can never do enough. And I知 pledging to do even more.
>> the one thing that I thought was -- that I would like to try and discuss next week that I don't think is clear to everybody, and is in your report, and you're right, maybe the report is too big and people aren't getting that out of it is that there's somehow this impression out there, I think, that the people who are in lower cost houses, who are delinquent in taxes are somehow going to be better off if you out source this. And I think that's a big mistake to walk away with that feeling because most of the lawsuits that are filed by Travis County are like a year later or more than -- and they're for more than one delinquency. Every single person who is delinquent at July first of each tax year is going to have to pay an additional 15 or 20 or whatever the percentage is that you agree with with an outside law firm.
>> but don't miss the assumption that some of us have already made the decision that it has to be a private firm.
>> I知 not. What I知 trying to say is --
>> I want to be very clear about that. I think a lot of assumptions are made when somebody just asks the question, you know.
>> what I知 referring to is --
>> all I want is all of the information, okay?
>> what I知 referring to is when people sat here and explained that it was unfair and that somehow made the implication that a private law firm would make this better. I知 not referring to anything that you were talking about, but what I知 saying is if you look at the number of lawsuits that are in those courthouses, and we can go over this next week, the number of people who would be paying that 15% that are in the lowest (indiscernible), would be much greater, particularly in precincts one and four. And I壇 like the opportunity to go over that next week just to make sure you understand that as well.
>> okay. Thanks y'all very. We'll have it back on next week.
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, May 10, 2006 1:15 PM