Travis County Commissioners Court
January 2, 2007
Item 25
25. Consider and take appropriate action on legislative issues and proposed bills before the 80th Texas legislature.
>> good morning, judge Biscoe. Last week we said that we would bring back four issues to consider. But there's only one, I think itment be an early session. It's an -- a short session. It's the early retirement bill. The other three we didn't bring back. One the toll violators bill. We have a draft, it needs a lot of work but we want to work on that draft before we bring it back to you.
>> is that the administrative hearings one.
>> yes.
>> okay. What are our counties doing that have the same issue? Anything?
>> yes, that's why when we got the draft back, we looked at harris county, they have a very detailed legislative scheme. So we want to rework the bill before you see it. On misdemeanor warrants, you had asked for comments from the pretrial office and they do have comments and so we are going to back to the drafting board on that bill before we bring it back to you as well. And then finally on the writ of execution bill, which you have already approved. But last week you wanted further explanation. And there -- there are other individuals that want to provide input on that bill. We are going to do that as well. Today will --
>> [multiple voices]
>> writ of execution, have the other counties that I investigation impacted just as much as we are, are they on board with this thing going forward? In other words a uniform movement in the direction of this writ of execution?
>> yes, absolutely. The major counties are, just the details --
>> I understand. Okay. Just wanted to hear that. Okay.
>> the other thing, though, is what makes somebody a toll violator because I also hear on the news that they came up with a third way of paying. It sounded like, I may have gotten it wrong, but it sounded like you could use it. If you didn't have a tag or I guess you could pay cash, but there was something where they said they would send the bill to you later.
>> they will, but you have to go through a certain lane and then it takes the picture then they send you the bill. But if you are not going to pay, you don't have a toll tag, then there is another area where you go through where it does take the picture.
>> those will not be toll violators.
>> not unless you don't pay it.
>> right. Okay.
>> well, then certain period of time. Within a certain period of time.
>> there also be some I think substantial questions that we need to answer about how the other jurisdictions are handling this. Because my understanding is that in houston there is a private law firm that does the collection for the toll violations and that brings the whole other issue of, you know, I'm not exactly sure how they structure it, whether this is a special prosecutor or a post judgment settlement circumstance or how exactly they are addressing it. But I think there are policy concerns that we might want to look at.
>> here in Travis County, I know the j.p.'s don't from I understand part of the deal is try to get the workload of course increasing, from what I understand they aren't in favor of bringing on that new service --
>> [multiple voices]
>> that's correct. Trying to keep these proceedings out of the j.p. Courts. In terms of how where he do that
>> [multiple voices]
>> may be different options on that. But I guess as we orchestrate that, even if it's an administrative hearing or whatever other avenue that may be available, but I think at the end of the day, as we just stated, the j.p.'s really don't want that increased workload.
>> that's correct.
>> okay.
>> all right.
>> the proposed legislation that we wanted to discuss with the court today deal was the retiree coverage. We talked about this with the court. We met with Commissioners -- Commissioner eckhardt who made a recommendation for a change in the document we just passed out. On page 2, lines 11 and 12. Now reads retirees ... The municipality for each annual open enrollment and the added language is a period of -- an enrollment period, a level of coverage comparable to that offered to current employees. I think that was recommended for clarification purposes. The idea of -- of modifying chapter 175 is to allow options to be looked at for covering early retirees. And possibly pooling that into a larger group and spreading the risk to try to keep costs down. This is in no way mandatory, it's up to the -- to the elected officials and the governing board to make a decision on whether or not to use this opportunity or to just continue with where they are at. So it's really just to give the -- the governing bodies an opportunity an option to look at. Because current language as I understand says that early retirees will be offered the same coverage as current employees. And sometimes that -- that drives costs up. So -- so it's just an -- to offer an option to governing bodies.
>> let me ask you this. If you work for Travis County, you start working for Travis County at age 25, you retire from Travis County 12 years later. You are 37. You then go to another place of employment, not nearly as good as Travis County, but another place of employment. The insurance that we offer our employees is better than your second employer. Are you an early retiree at Travis County if.
>> you are a gaper.
>> a what.
>> a gapper.
>> the answer is no.
>> correct.
>> I just thought overnight about that. Any thoughts about the recommended language from our new Commissioner. If not I will move approval of the recommended language.
>> I will second that. But do we ever have a fiscal, do you have the ability to attach a fiscal note to kind of get an idea of what we need to consider during the budget process?
>> we can do that.
>> that would be nice, that will really be helpful.
>>
>> [indiscernible] type deal.
>> I would ask, this is a ggly little thing, call me the prissy new Commissioner with all kinds of outrageous request, if we could get it in legislative format so we can see what language is being struck, I think that would more inform what the language change was.
>> they usually do that.
>> that's a good point.
>> [multiple voices] because really what is happening if there's a change, my staff have to do -- we have to go through the whole document to figure out where the change is. That's no good for us, I -- anything that comes to us, it will go good if the departments will bring the information to us, whether it be in the legislative format or whatever the document that you have if there's a change to what we already have as far as our review, then I think some kind of way you ought to indicate that to let us know exactly what the change is so we can go directly to it to see what that is. It will save us a lot of time without having to go all the way back through the document to compare it document by document. You have no indication of where the change is. It really would help out.
>> we will put that in legislative format.
>> thank you.
>> April bacon, I'm just here as an employee to -- to lodge some concerns about what this is attempting to do. The purpose of that chapter when you read it to give county employees the right to purchase, you all don't have to fund it for us, but the right to purchase the same package that regular employees have. What this legislation seems to be doing is to sort of remove that right, to say no you can't be on the same as the other county employees have, as long as we are giving you something that's similar to it and last week when dan was talking about this, he was talking about the comparability being co-pays. Well, I can tell you a plan that offers me -- a lot of things that our plan offers that we specifically put in there to address things like diabetic supplies and prosthetics and various other things, allergy shots, that's not going to be a comparable plan if -- if I move for a plan forcefully that has none of those things so long as the plan is the same.
>> [no video, emergency broadcast test playing]
>> ... Of coverage has had to be offered to early retirement. I, too, I have questions as well about whether b 1 and b 2 should have mirrored language of same level of coverage versus level of coverage that's comparable and perhaps dan could address what the difference between, in his mind what the intent is between those two -- the difference in that language. I'm driving at the same thing that you are. I think early retirees should --
>> less coverage is not comparable.
>> well, that all gets into the definition. And the definition that dan used last week was same co-pay and same --
>> I don't know that --
>> [multiple voices]
>> co-pays wouldn't necessarily be service.
>> if it's the same plan, if it has all of the same features of it, on our plan, why --
>> because of the cost.
>> but you could still offer that cost to them on -- you can do that right now if you wanted to. You could offer an option for them at -- at different standards as long as they still have a right to purchase on our plan.
>> whatever authorized we have we can continue. The way it was explained to me. If we can go and get with tak or aarp and they have a better early retiree program, say for those 06 to 6 -- 60 to 65, premed care, we can get on to them and typically their coverage is pretty good. But if the rates are substantially lower, then that may be an advantage for us. So I mean I don't see this as being us -- being put in a position to offer less services. The reason is not because they participate in our program, it's because the Commissioners court voted really to let retirees use it. Because for the first year they did not, right?
>> now, they weren't -- they were eligible to use it, but for various reasons mainly that we didn't publicize it too well --
>> they have the ability -- too we have the -- do we have the ability to vote that the clinic is for incumbent employees only? Not retirees?
>> you can vote to -- to cover non-plan participants.
>> that's what I'm saying. So we concluded, hey, we are picking up part of the insurance coverage for early retirees and the clinics are helping active employees, let's open it for them, too. See what I'm saying?
>> yes. But I am -- I think to some extent the assumption is that -- I'm looking at this under the assumption that let's say the court doesn't fund anything towards retiree insurance. The retirees are simply purchasing at whatever the market rate is. Right now, 175 says I can purchase at the market rate. You all don't have to subsidize me at all. The fact that you all do subsidize a retiree is a wonderful, generous thing. But the chapter doesn't require that. So now I can -- I can pay full price, full freight on my premium to -- to buy current health care at the same that the employees have. If I understand what this is trying to do, this is trying to say no you can no longer purchase on our plan. Even if you want to pay the full freight for it, you can't. We are going to make you go get aarp because we think that's comparable. We want to drive you all over to something where you have less choices. Now, you may be paying a better rate here and we are making that decision for you. Because we are not going to fund any of the aarp portion either. So -- so I --
>> can you pay your own rate today?
>> yes, absolutely. That's what that statute does, you are --
>> all right. But in terms of county policy, you don't have to because for early retirees we have a plan in place.
>> yes.
>> and the county contributes so much towards the cost of that employee contributes so much, also.
>> yes.
>> so for virtually all of the retirees, nearly all of them, coverage by the Travis County plan means certain premium for the retirees, certain premium for Travis County. I don't see that changing but would a definition of comparable work out. That was my question. What does comparable mean. Go to webster's figure it out. But if -- if we need to define that in the bill, if we -- we can do that, right? The question is how much help would it be. My guess is start with webster's definition for it but if we can start with webster's, go to health insurance plans and programs and services and kind of tweak it and get where we need to go, makes sense to me. But if what we were trying to do is flexibility factor, I thought I why we thought this was good. I do understand what April is saying. Then you are into ambiguity, who is it that makes that call. I had to ask webster's, four or five different people --
>> it's a flexibility issue. If you only consider it in light of the court funding a portion of it, of either of these, if you take the court's funding issue out, okay, think about it more purely about what that statute was intended to do, then you could -- you could right now offer more things than you currently offer. They would still have the right, the employee has the right. This is going to say to the employee, you no longer have the right to purchase the employees insurance if we as a court decide to put you in a pool with aarp. Whether or not we fund it. If I understand this correctly --
>> hold on one second, hold on, hold on. Barbara, see what's happening here.
>> I think that one of the things that the court has to keep in mind is that you are not making a decision about what's going to happen to Travis County's retirees when you make a decision about whether or not to support this bill. What this bill -- what this change to this bill is asking for, is flexibility in the management if at some future time it seems appropriate to take a different course than exactly what we have got now. So it's not a decision on your part to change anything for your retirees immediately. It's putting yourself in the position of being able to choose at a future point.
>> [multiple voices]
>> would like to have that.
>> and --
>> flexibility.
>> the second thing that I think that you need to remember is as a self funded plan, its premiums are not the big issue. It really doesn't -- doesn't quo into -- come into where your concern ought to be about whether or not these people have to be included in your self funded plan. The real issue, hey, you are out there and exposed to $150,000 of potential risk per year per person. Person who is covered, regardless of what premium you have set because that's where your -- where your stop loss steps in and -- and stops -- so, you know, worst case scenario, which I do not believe would ever happen, I repeat this three times, don't believe it would ever happen, would be if every single early retiree hit stop loss in the same year. I mean that would be more than catastrophic for the plan. Now, do I think there's any chance of that ever happening, no,, I don't believe so that. But that's the real risk there. Not the issue related to premiums.
>> well, would it be comparable coverage if the -- if the early retiree program had a different stop loss provision? I don't -- well, for one thing I don't think that I could get our carrier to do that. The other thing is that I don't think the level of stop loss is anything that would be considered in -- in comparability because when you are talking about comparability as between employee and a -- and on -- a retiree, your -- you're going to be looking at how it affects the employee, how it affects the retiree. That affects your pocketbook so to speak not them in any way.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> that would be am I covered if I do to the emergency room and what kind of co-pay would I have to have, what kind of deductible would I have to have? What's mu maximum amount out of pocket? So am I covered when I get sick for this thing? And truth of the matter is within our plan, there are some things you're plain not covered for. Obvious one is if I want a tummy tuck, I've got to pay for it myself. Cosmetic surgery. And that one I don't think anybody would have any question about whether that's appropriate or not: what health care you get paid for through the plan and how much does that attribute to the cost?
>> the plan we have is self-insured plan, which was specifically designed for Travis County. So if we mean a plan that has exactly the same thing, I would venture to say there is no plan that does that and I think that's April's point. I think that she separated it right in that there's an issue of what is the employee's right to be on a plan separate from what will the county pay for a plan. And this issue deals with what right does the employee have to be on a plan. I don't know if the current law had allows us to awferb more than one plan to our retire ooez including our plan, but that would kind of take care of that. Someone might say, well, I'd like to be on the county's plan, but I'd like to also pay less and I would choose an alternate plan. But what this does, what the current law did contemplate is employees that did retire could have the very same could have raj, nothing to do with payment.
>> what if the language said the same level of coverage or a level of coverage comparable at the employee's discretion?
>> the problem there is --
>> we may be able to go to art and for less premiums than we are doing -- paying now, provide more coverage for our retirees. But I'm left with the impression that we cannot do that today under the current law.
>> under the current statute.
>> this is enough for you to serve on a subcommittee to look at this language further.
>> I would love to do that.
>> I withdraw my motion.and I move instead that dan and April and barbara -- anybody else want to be on this subcommittee? Commissioner eckhardt?
>> I'll help out, sure.
>> Commissioner eckhardt form a subcommittee to work with bob and talia --
>> second.
>> work on this language for us. Seconded by Commissioner Davis. Probably the best way to get it done. The other counties have sort of informally agreed that this will help them too. So whatever we come up with we need to informally run it by them and make sure that they're still on board. Otherwise something like this can easily be -- easily see an early death at the capitol.
>> we love these simple little bills, your honor.
>> just what we had in mind. That passes by unanimous vote? We'll have it back next week just in case and if not then, I guess we're running out of time to be early, right?
>> we're getting there. We're real close. We'd like to get filed before the end of this month if we could.
>> do we have a speaker?
>> we'll go back and watch. It's starting right now.
>> don't get too close. I don't want you to be a victim. Move that we recess until 1:30.
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, January 210, 2007 8:14 AM