Travis County Commissioners Court
February 13, 2007
Item 27
Number 27. Consider and take appropriate action on certain legislative issues and proposed bills before the 80th Texas legislature. Including the following. And a is draft bill relating to the criminal and civil enforcement of the required payment of a toll for the use of certain turnpike projects. Should we just read these out and just discuss as we get to each one of them ?
>> that would be fine, your honor.
>> okay. Let's hold off on a. Let's discuss a.
>> judge, good morning, bob cam here with brook shields and talia gas ter. The first item that you refer to is the toll violat violators bill. We have had this issue before you before. I think you have a copy of the draft bill in front of you. I will explain the paramount text. It is our recommendation. What this bill would could is to meet the goal of the court, which is to divert the toll violation offenses out of the jp court and into an administrative hearing. And so, it would be our recommendation that you vote to allow us to have this bill filed and to work with members of the Travis County delegation to get it filed. And with that, let me just give you a little background on the bill. It borrows from law that is already in place in Texas, primarily the harris county toll authority. And they have an administrative procedure set up in harris county, and we have talked with, at least by phone, with those folks. They think it's a process that works very well. The difference, however, is that in harris county, they own and operate those toll roads, and therefore, they are the authority that actually collects the tolls, the delinquent tolls. This your situation, you would be working through tex dot that and operates some of the toll roads, or you would be operating through the rma here that operate and maintains those toll roads. And so, the setup would be a little different. What this bill does, it gives tex dot and the are the ma the authority to set up the administrative hearing. The only question we have, and we haven't gotten there yet, is the connection between or the relationship that would then exist between the county and tex dot if it was their road, or the county and the rma if it was their road. I don't know if that's going to be an interroll agreement or what. But we would recommend going ahead and filing this bill. We'll keep working with the rma and tex dot to see if there's anything we have to add to the bill, and we can do that in committee with the committee substitute.
>> I have some questions about this bill. Frankly, I don't quite understand its functioning. From my an understanding, a person who jumps a toll has a ten-day turn-around to respond when the jp or this magistrate, if the county elects to have a magistrate, notifies them of having jumped the toll. Is that correct?
>> yes. Yes and no and Commissioner, I might be able to answer your question by just giving you a brief outline of the way they do it in har ix county.
>> that would be great.
>> what they do there, once there are at least three violations, the authority sends out a letter to them, asking them to pay those tolls. They say in 80 percent of the cases, the person responds and pays the toll by mail. For the other 20 percent, it then goes to a collection agency, which is a law firm that they contract with to houston. They send out a series of three letters, eve one getting progressively stronger language, asking them to pay the toll. The they don't pay it after the first two letters, then they send a letter ordering them to appear at an administrative hearing. The har ix is county toll way has set up a process for the administrative hearing and they have an old tax courtroom that they have, and that the where they have those hearingment they also have a new hearing or courtroom out further in the southwest where they are starting to do hearings there. But they do usually, they are going to be doing three hearings a week, one in the morning, one in the afternoon, one in the evening at different locations. There is one hearing officer pointed by the authority, either retired judge or lawyer, that hears those case. This they pay the hearing officer $500 per hearing. Each hearing they hear at least 200 cases. 200 to 250. Right now they are doing somewhere in the range to 5 500 to-750 per week in har ix county. Of those cases that come before the hearing officer they say only one or two or three might see the hearing officer. All the other ones are usually pleaded out, in effect. There's a settlement or a payment schedule that's reached with, between the attorney, their collection agency, and the offender. And they have different rates that they charge for those. I think it was, let me just, I think it's $14 per ticket, is the charge for the attorney fee, and it's very close to that, maybe $11 or $12, per ticket, for the administrative fee. And they say that they never waive the toll. That can only be done by the Commissioners court there. Never waive the toll, don't very often waive the administrative fee, but they will negotiate on the attorneys fees. Again, it's their agent, the law firm doing that negotiation. Most of them are settled out without even going to the court. The few times that this becomes actually a criminal offense is if some one just never shows up and they turn those license numbers over to the con stabels office. If they do find those people they actually arrest them and it's a criminal prosecution in that instance instance. But all, 99.9 percent of these are handled as administrative process. This bill would set up the same process for you all. The reason it's confusing on this first page there of the bill where they have the order of prohibition, once they have at least, I think it's two, well, it's any time they fail to pay a toll once they do that, and once the authority sends out that notice, that, it sort of converts into an administrative offense. In other words, once they get on the toll road after having violated it once, that action of getting back on the toll road when they had an order of prohibition not to be thererb becomes an administrative violation. And that's what they actually prosecute.
>> sounds like, and correct me if I'm wrong, it sounds like we are essentially, after a second offense, we are substituting out a civil procedure where we pay a private law firm to do what county attorneys and municipal attorneys have traditionally done for class d misdemeanors of we creating a parallel track. The administrative track, which is civil mnature, because otherwise it would violate the extexas constitution. And the criminal track if our civil track doesn't work.
>> right.
>> okay.
>> my issue with that, of course, is by creating a civil track, we are essentially hiring a private law firm to enforce the laws of the state. And we are reducing burden of proof to a preponderance of the evidence standard rather than beyond a reason reasonable doubt. As long as the toll authority says you did it, it's a he said/she said. And the way the credibility is probably with your toll authority. Those are my concerns with this bill. I hear what you are saying about harris county.
>> Commissioner, there is a reference that sets on the that men process that deals deals--the administrative process that sets out the issuewhere did you say that was--
>> where did you say that was ?
>> page 3 of the bill.
>> 228.
>> line 28.
>> 284, line 20.
>> chapter 284 sets out an administrative, well, I'm not sure. It does deal with how you handle evidentiary issues and appeals, enforcement of the decision, et cetera.
>> yeah, the authority for a county.
>> presumption, evidence of owner ship.
>> all this is is a citation or summons. All this means is you have to give notice as you would under a class e misdemeanor operation. That doesn't tuge go to, that means that--doesn't actually go to, that means you have to show evidence that you gave notice. That doesn't change the standard of proof necessary. It just says that you have to prove up that you gave notice. This is how you do it, 284. 284.205.
>> your question goes to that standard of proof?
>> yes. I think we're creating, what we're doing is we're basically substituting a separate way of prosecuting but not calling it prosecution because that would violate the Texas constitution. And in order to set up this separate parallel track, by necessity, we have to lower the standard of evidence. I don't see how we could set up a civil procedure and make the standard of proof the same standard of proof that usually is applied to class e misdemeanor, which is beyond a reasonable doubt.
>> okay. Would your question then go to the effectiveness of this procedure in terms of success of prosecuting ?
>> no, I think the state would be highly successful. That's my point, is that.
>> ah.
>> it makes the bar much lower for the state.
>> Commissioner, I think we totally appreciate your point. The place where this started was a concern about the over overcrowding court when hundreds and thousands of tickets came in.
>> I'm respectful of that. It certainly will create a burden on the court. Frankly, it looks to be that we're going to create a burden one way or the other. The question is where weather we burden a jp or create a new m?dge straight to handle the burden. What this bill does, one thing it does do, it leave yates yates--alleviates the county attorney's office to prosecute we'll be hiring a private law firm to essentially prosecute on our behalf. That's the net effect of this I see.
>> yeah. And that of course, that's the model that the out there right now. You're certainly not wedded to that.
>> right. In order to hire a private law fix, have you to turn it into a civil action because you could not have a private law firm representing the state on a criminal action. Therefore, ergo, the standard of proof has to lower to preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt and you don't have to have an officer there. You don't have to have a state's attorney there or an officer there. All have you to prove up is that you gave notice and that the toll authority says you jumped toll.
>> right. I think, Commissioner, just to again put this in perspective, our role here is simply to be responsive to concerns expressed by the jp's to the court. To look around and see what solution was reached in other parts of the state that have dealt with this issue, and as bob has indicated, this is virtually a copy of that solution. To the extent that the court wants a different solution, you know, that's totally okay with us. Our only suggestion would be that we need to do that very very quickly, just because the clock is ticking.
>> uh-huh. Point well taken. I think, and I think that we do have a process currently in place that can and is designed to handle class e misdemeanors. Toll roads will put a very serious burden on that system. This bill does alleviate the burden to some degree but really, as I see it, and in our conversation today it makes it clearer to me as you describe how houston handles it, because that's not explicit in the bill that you would hire private attorneys, da da da, but that is where it alleviates the burden on Travis County. If this bill were to pass we would have the ability to farm out prosecution and there by through necessity
>> [tra-bs] form form-- form--transform it into a civil action. I don't know that what we give up by doing that is worth it. I want to be clear that while I am completely mind mindful of the burden that toll jumping accuse-- accuse--prosecution will have on our jp, we do currently have something in place that we have had for more than a hundred years to deal with class e misdemeanor prosecutionment but thank you for responding to me question. Frankly, I just didn't understand the bill as I was reading it. It's not very clear what kind of parallel system is being set up by this bill. As you describe how it's implemented in houston, it's much clearer to me now.
>> yeah.
>> is this a local bill or would this apply to--
>> statewide. It would apply to any future rmas and existing rma.
>> whatever you file, other folk will become engaged in the legislative process and we'll surface with hopefully something we can all live withthat's.
>> that the correct.
>> the ones that have had tolls have had administrative authorities to deal with this.
>> yes. And it's easier to see how that would all flow. And that the why we are saying get the bill filed and let us work on it. We still have questions like you do, even how that would, the relationship between tex dot and you all or the rman and you all in terms of getting these things creatingment if you were to go to some type of administrative procedure or a major straight.
>> it vo appears from this bill that the alleged violator has absolutely in choice by by--about which system they are in had. It's administrative until the state, the county, decides they can go to a criminal procedure instead.
>> that the true.
>> and while the common guy, I don't think, isn't going to care, there is some issue about whether you want a criminal conviction or a civil fine.
>> if other jurisdictions will be impacted, seems to me we ought to get something in the hopper , contact the other jurisdictions that will be impacted, see what they have in mind, and try to come up with language that we think is better than this that the acceptel either we do that or take more time and try to get the perfect bill. The problem with that, once you go to other jurisdictions, who knows what they will come up with, but Texas association of counties, cuc, I think we ought to find out what counties are impacted same as we and what's the best way to approach it and get a consensusment we stand a much better chance of getting the legislature to agree with the consensus than just one jurisdiction like us. Right?
>> yes, that's correct.
>> in view of that, I move that we authorize the filing of this bill with the an understanding that Commissioners court and staff will work with other jurisdictions and other drafts, probably, over the next few weeks or months until we come up with a product that we think is better than this.
>> second.
>> would you like to serve as our point person ?
>> no, I'm going to vote against this bill. I think it's--
>> I thought that would be good to serve as point person if you're working toward a better product.
>> sure.
>> my only concern is trying to accommodate the j?mp p's who say we are inundated already, court, don't send us more stuff, and especially little stuff. But the state wants this money. Very little, if any, will come to Travis County, right right?
>> maybe that's an area of improvement. Whoever is going to collect the money should maybe invest some of the money in the magistrate. Because why would it fall all to the county if we're not going to keep very much of the money.
>> that's a very good quempt I think those are the things questions raised by this draft. In harris county, since they operate, they pay the courtroom, the judges, everything is simple. But now--
>> if we got the money we could set up a court system.
>> also, there's already a division of criminal fees that do bounce back to the county. That's also another issue, distribution of the financial burden of creating this magistrate position.
>> yeah. That will make the other counties perk up, I guarantee.
>> the county usually carri carries the burden of providing the fund. We do all the work and we send the money to the state.
>> if we do nothing, my fear is that these will be treated as class e misdemeanors filed in the jp court and the responsibility colce to us without meaning meaningful additional revenue.
>> the relief judges to the jp's were not enough? Maybe we need to look at that.
>> certainly wasn't done with this mmind. With the cases jp's have right now, they are all screaming about being overloaded.
>> I think it's fair to say, judge th?rk bill was drafted almost solely with an eye toward relieving the anticipated burden to the j?mp p courts. --jp courts. You are now raising a number of legitimate questions. I would urge the court to let us get the bill filed so we can then begin to address those questions. I think those are all valid questions. I don't know that we thought past the point of the jp's coming before you two years ago and saying, we are completely overrun. If we have hundreds or thousands of these cases suddenly pending in our courtroom. I think particularly in precinct two is where the concern was expressed. We don't know how we would function. That's what this was drafted in response to.
>> regardless of what comes out in the final analysis, the fact that we don't own the toll roads means we don't keep the money.
>> we get a little money.
>> . More of the money goes to the state.
>> I understand the problem that the jp's are facing and I think we have to recognize that this is a problem created by the recent development of a criminal offense for use of the roads when you don't pay a toll. This is an unintended cost and not thought of, of moving though a use tax that's a toll rather than a use tax that's a gas tax. Or in addition to a use tax that's a gas tax.
>> our biggest problem is we have to do somethingel doing nothing means the burden comes to us.
>> yes, sir.
>> we have discussed this at least two years.
>> yes, sir.
>> since the last legislative session. Now, today we can either take more time. If we commit to work on language. Or we can authorize a filing of this bill. We still have to work. The counties will have different ideas about what ought to be done. The newspaper says william son county.
>> it's our an understanding the Commissioners court in william son county is not interested in this option. It's my an understanding they are going to put them through the normal system at this point in time. That's what we have been told.
>> yeah. We get the burden one way or the other, whether we choose even if this bill passes, whichever one we choose to avail ourselves of.
>> but our challenge, though is is tom up up--to come up with language that we think is better than this if it exists.
>> I don't think it exists.
>> we can talk about revenue revenue. We can certainly talk about the revenue.
>> I'm going to wind up with something else I don't like.
>> and also, part of it is finding out what is the intention of the turnpike division of tex dot. Maybe they intend not to prosecute these. We just don't know. We have been trying to set up some meeting with them to figure that out. That will be an issue. We have talked with the rma, and I think they are willing to cooperate with the different counties and the court.
>> according to the bill, it's the commission that gets the choose whether a civil procedure is put in place or not, according to the bill.
>> it could take some work.
>> yeah.
>> do we take more time and try to work on it and bring it back ?
>> I think they need to file it. I think we need to let them them--
>> the advantage of filing it, it's way to publish it to the world so we will start to hear from those we need to hear from.
>> we know we have some things to work with. You all need to get it filed.
>> is somebody else going to file this if we don't ?
>> not that we know of.
>> shouldn't our position be that whoever takes on this responsibility ought to get enough revenue to cover it sm.
>> absolutely.
>> a legislator from another part of the state, that would sound like a fair proposition.
>> that was a rhetorical question.
>> thank you.
>> all in favor. Voting against, Commissioner Eckhardt, Commissioner Gomez Gomez. Weil have this back on next week.
>> okay.
>> b is termination of consideration of proposal to provide alternative healthcare coverage to early retirees. Move that we approve this. That basically is to defer consideration of an act like this until the next session, because it seems to clash with our gas by 45 bill.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor. Show unanimous court. C, consider and take appropriatation on request tor regulation of land use authority for Travis County and/or other hill country counties.
>> I believe that presentation is to be made by staff.
>> okay this came up last Tuesday when we were talking about sh 130 and the develop development pressures coming about because of the new toll road. We had had looked at basically what existing authorities municipalities have that go beyond what counties currently have. We have the authority to regulate subdivisions but no authority to regulate uses. What we would propose is that the counties within that corridor that are affected by 130 be granted some additional authorities to control land uses. And it would track pretty much the same type of authority currently we have, that cities have within their incorporated area. Much of this development is occurring out in the un unincorporated area. It's occurring fairly quickly and randomly. And I think there's an intent on the part of all the local government, both the cities and the counties, to extend our authorities beyond the corporate limits.
>> joe, just briefly, you had talked to Commissioner Davis about this yesterday and had gone over, because I know it was of great concern to him, having participated in the 130 corridor meetings off the last year and a half or so. Where is he on this? I know he is not here today. My an understanding from him is he is supportive.
>> he asked in his absence that we move forward today, yes.
>> so what specific language do we have in mind ?
>> we have some generally language. Basically, that imports authorities, and I can kind of give you a generally sense. Let me first preference that we are not interested in whatsoever regulating agriculture uses. I think that's something we need to put on the table. Or the smaller parcels, ten acres and fewer, of parcels of landlve we would be talking about authorities similar to the cities for regulating land uses, the ability to make sure that incompatible land uses were not located next to each other. Basically be able the define where things like commercial industrial, residential uses occur. We would be talking about the location and the -- --density of buildings and structures, where signs are located and how they are located, setbacks from road roadways d?lve. We. We would be talking about all aspects of street use, road use, the availability of wait and wastewater and drainage facility to serve that develop. Ment we would also be seeking authority to assess new development for the impact on the infrastructure infrastructure. And we're talking about some form of impact fee to pay for water, wastewater, drainage and roadway facilities, those properties that are developing would be assessed in a rough pro proportionel basis on what additional infrastructure would have to be put in place in order to serve the new development. And we would be looking for some administrative fee as part of the legislation that will allow us to recoup the cost of reviewing the applications for these permits. Basically general land use authority within the corridor of sate highway 130.
>> as background on this, when Commissioner Davis raised this issue, we both started talking to joe and also to tom about bills that were already out there. And or an understanding was that there is a bill out there pertaining to kendall county, which we closely track the language of. Kendall county is also asking for this broad land use authority. However, the kendall county bill doesn't apply to it a specific area like our 130 corridor. Ours is much more narrowly drawn, our request is more narrowly drawn because it hinges on 130 as accelerator of growth in an unincorporated area that's predominantly rule. I contacted senator watson about this. Senator watson is keenly interested in promoting a bill that has authority broad enough to apply to any county under similar circumstances, so it doesn't just apply to ours. And as far as text, although we did kick around some ideas, the train around what kind of bill is being sought by the delegation, is a rapidly changing terrain. Yesterday morning in discussions with senator watson, we talked of tying to the 130 corridor. By the afternoon the terrain had changed on that as far as what would be the trigger triggering mechanism to make a county eligible, whether it's explosive population growth in the previous five years and the presence of 130, or not. There was also some conversation over whether or not a referendum provision should be included in the bill so that a county would only be able to avail themselves of this increased authority if the county, through vote by the population at large, chose to avail themselves of this increased authority. So we put that in, that only a county that has 130 going through it, only a county, we're requesting that it only apply to counties with 130 that have explosive population growth, that population votes to have that increased authority, and that it doesn't apply to agricultural, doesn't apply to incorporated areas, doesn't apply to small plat, only applies where you have the explosive growth and it's moving to rapidly that it makes a circumstance where you're going to have crazy quiltgrowth and ability to respond quickly enough for the heritage of the area or quality of life to be preserved. So the discussion was to leave it in bill summary form with a wish list of powers so that the delegation can decide what is most useful, who it applies to and what the authorities are and whether the population has to vote to provide those authorities.
>> joe, what application would interpret here with regards to what effect this would have on western Travis County? I know that 130 is sort of used as the common denominator for counties, but given the fact, as you know, that there are a number of things on here that a number of people would want applied to western Travis County, and having again through the growth dialogue process, I mean, we know that there are these kinds of things that some folks want. And quite frankly, I mean, it's the thing that really puts this between a rock and hard spot. There are clearly things that I need to have the ability to use in western Travis County. You just find yourself in how far are you willing to go with some of these things before you get into the classic fight of you are taking my property. And that's probably going to be the fight in western, probably in eastern as well. If you start telling people what you can really do with your property and what you can't do with it. Am I to read this as being, this probably would allow Travis County to perhaps do referendum if the county voted for it, to be able to apply to western Travis County as well? Is that the way you would interpret this ?
>> I think ideally, this is the balance that I think that we're trying to feel our way through right now. In terms of not only what Travis County would like to see but also what is possible to get through the legislative session.
>> right.
>> ideally, I think we with like the see, from my perspective, something that gives you the ability to apply apply countiwide, if that is what we desire. We have found what fit western county doesn't necessarily fit eastern county. We like to tailor the resolution to what the problems are and how they are coming about. I with like to see some legislation that gives you the ability to do it and do it, know, with about, I mean with the local option that maybe allows everyone to opt in or opt out and decide for themselves what portion of the county they want these regulations to cover.
>> let me speak to that for a moment. This specific bill summary, this requested legislation as it's written, would only apply to a swath along the 130 corridor. This particular summary envisions that swath, and that's kind of what I'm talking about as far as the terrain changing moment to moment. There's been talk of applying two miles on either side, five miles, ten miles. But along with that, and dovetailing with what you are sailing, there's also been talk about not tying it to 130 corridor and rather tying it to explosive population growth. For instance, and this is not in here, but one thing that has been bandied about is saying if you are a county over, say, 700,000 in population currently and your growth rate in the last five years according to dem graphy has been at a rate of x and you're expected to continue that rate over the next ten years, then you too could avail yourself of these increased powers through referendum, but only in circumstances where you are a high growth region, your high growth is expected to continue, and the specific findings apply to you. And some of the specific findings could be that your county includes a major watershed that provides water for the region beyond your county limits, that you contain a city, a major metropolitan area that is rapidly growing, and the finding is that your economic health depends on your ability to have these expanded authorities. So in answer to your query, I think there is some conversation out there to broaden out those authorities. This particular request is not that broad.
>> who drafted the bill that's before us?
>> sorry, I didn't hear the question.
>> who drafted this bill ?
>> tom and I did.
>> because in 231.261, the subchapter applies only to the unincorporated areas of Travis County page 2.
>> I'm not sure what you have in your backup.
>> that issue there, judge, there's already multiple drafts floating around. Commissioner Eckhardt talking about the terrain changing so father.
>> we thought we would have text appropriate to present, but, I mean, every telephone conversation changes the ter range and the conversations are coming from the legislature. So I think there's real genuine interest in a bill like this but what the specific text will say is a little loose right now.
>> move that we authorize Commissioner Eckhardt and Davis and joe geez man to work with our consultants and legislators, right, to come up with a draft. I guess if I were a resident of Travis County with what I perceive to be some regulatory issues, county regulatory authority problems, I would wander why I was cut out out--and sh 130 was included. My preference would be to try to include the whole county. If we think that's dead on arrival, I'm in the sure it makes sense to go there--i'm not sure it makes sense to go there.
>> the discussion is since all the parties were at some of those meeting with senator water sop, it was not just Travis County, it kind of shows up the independenter dependency of all of us in terms of economic economic--develop economic--development. Sounds like we need to have more conversations with senator watson.
>> there's nothing we can do except push it in the right direction.
>> there were a lot of conversations under the table.
>> I would ask, and could be regarded as a friendly amend amendment to the motion, that we as a Commissioners court decide to approve this as a placeholder, the bill summary, as a starting point at least from our perspective, in our conversations with the senator. My an understanding with the senator is he wands to have the with whoever the--the conversations with whoever the Commissioners court feels is the appropriate person to have the conversations. And then to go to the rest of the delegation to discuss how the bill should be and what are the highest probabilities for it passage in making that decision and how the bill should read.
>> and joe, do we have in the bill, will we also address the impact of what happens upstream and downstream to make sure that it's holistic? Whatever is going to occur in western Travis County, we know impacts eastern Travis County. So we need to kind of be comprehensive in what we write into the bill so that we don't wind up leaving something undonedone. And I'm thinking drainage especially.
>> it does include drainage. I hear your point. Point..
>> to be holistic and comprehensive in the way we approach the issues.
>> yeah.
>> it's okay for me to start with this but what I am hearing is a whole lot broader.
>> I think it's just a starting point.
>> the problem though is that you need to get the same people in the same room don't you? The engaged people in the same room to come up with even a draft document. We can respond to that.
>> yeah.
>> it's difficult the to respond. The document I looked at, I was left with the impression this is asking for the whole ball of wax. Maybe we ought to they have kind of rejected parts if not all of this previously. Maybe they have forgotten. But we are a whole lot better off by looking at a draft bill and saying let's get behind this one. Realizing that before the end of the legislative session, that may be changed changed.
>> judge, a couple things in terms of our involvement. Since the court has not taken a position, we really have not engaged any of the legislators on this issue. However, we have had, particularly senator watson has represented to you, that it is his goal to look after everyone's interest.
>> sure.
>> and we have put trust in that representation. He has, you know, we all know him. He has a great record of bringing people together and trying to come up with something. So what we would do, if you authorize us to work with Commissioner Eckhardt and joe and all, was to start with senator watson.
>> uh-huh.
>> go from there and see where it goes. And I understand he is trying to draft something. But we are confident that he is going to take your input into consideration and involve everyone he can at the table. That the just his style.
>> that's exactly my--
>> that's exactly my motion.
>> second.
>> discussion? You're still looking at two, three, four week, aren't you you?
>> sure.
>> I mean, well.
>> very complex.
>> I would suspect this would be negotiated from, you know, now until the end of the session.
>> perhaps we should add to the motion, who are we authorizing bob to go and work on the language with the senator, and should there be any--
>> that the fine.
>> I'll be happy to be the point person aiding in that effort. And then I believe joe should be certainly in contact with the senator as well.
>> yeah.
>> yeah, whatever the product is has to be brought back to the court at some point.
>> and of course commission Commissioner Davis. This is a keen interest of his.
>> and I think when we try to say this at least once a session but we haven't said it this session. Our role here, we bend over backwards not to take a position, our own personal position on any of these. So what we are going to do is just try to facilitate the discussion back and forth, since we're over there and we have exposure to a the lo of different legislature, so we are are going to hear different things. We will try to take that information and provide it to the court and to joe and tom and everybody else that you want us to. But that would be, that's how we perceive our role. We're ready to do that.
>> if Commissioner Davis is not interested, then Commissioner Gomez, because it impacts sh 130.
>> I can be an alternate.
>> okay. He is not here, so I feel a little uneasy, but I think he would welcome the opportunity to do it.
>> let me ask.
>> okay.
>> chris, what are your thoughts on some of this stuff? I know that you have had a lot of background in all of had this.
>> right.
>> the land management kind of world.
>> I am sadly, you know, interest matly familiar with these issues--intimately familiar with these issues. Let me start by telling the court I do not represent anyone other than the court on these issues. I have in the past with your permission but I do not now. I would point out a couple of things to the court. First, senator went worth has find legislation every session as far back as I can remember, which attempt to grant the county some land use authority. And we have all supported that legislation as at least a beginning step in giving the county the authority that they need in order to do the very things that are set forth in this paper. Unfortunately, in most sessions, that legislation has not even managed to get a hearing in front of the relevant legislative committee, musmuch less go through the process. The most important thing that we need to tell the court as your lobby team, this is a very tall hill to climb. This is a very big bite to take. I have suggested to the court in the past that this is one of the most critical issues that you face, and that the only bay we're ultimately going--way we're ultimately going to make progress on it is in one of two ways. One, a local bill which applies only to Travis County and which we're able to get the support of the Travis County delegation and the rest of the legislature says fine, if that's what they want to do there, we will give them that authority. Or two, something that represents a compromise, a negotiated type bill where the interests of private property owners, developers, as well as the environmental interests and others, are taken into consideration. It has been very hard to get all those parties to the table. As you know, Commissioner dougherty, that has happened in western Travis County with some success, depending on kind of your perspective, it's a very tough process. This summary that was presented today, I think, is a very well done piece. I think this really captures a lot of what senator watson has been talking about. I think it captures what needs to happen along sh 130 130. And I would encourage the court to consider something that is is a baby step, if you will, that does focus on sh 130. I would suggest you to go broader than that. At this point in the session it been already February, without having some of those other parties to the table, is probably going to be more likely to result in nothing passing. I think it would be great if we could find something, even if it's a baby step that we could pass this year that begins the process of giving to the county the authority that it needs to do many of these things. I think there are two things that you could do specifically that would enhance that likelihood, and I'll just mention those two things. One is, I would set forth minimum baseline protections or some sort of standards, in the statute so that you are not encouraging litigation, so that there is not continuing controversy, so that the court is not called upon to make those determinations, but rather they are set forth in law and they are relatively clear black and white, whatever those standards may be. The second thing that I would suggest is that you should not create any sort of system where there is a potentially conflict with the authority of the city of Austin. I think you either need to clearly cede authority to the city of Austin and its e tj or agree with them that you have that authority. But for you to overlap would be inconsistent with the legislation that senator went worth and other have worked so hard on in the two last legislative sessions. Those would be my comments. I would also like to say, I've seen a couple drafts, judge, of legislation that you probably have in front of you. My perspective would be that at least one of the drafts that I have seen, it would be very hard for this lobby team or the court's efforts to find somebody to actually file those bills, much less to get a hearing on them, much less to pass them. I think that we need to find something that we can do this time and try to set in place a process that perhaps over the next legislative session, in the next legislative session, after that even, can evolve into the ability of the county to have this authority.
>> that's fine. I think ongoing conversations with senator watson are absolutely essential. He was there with all of the stakeholders together in those meetings for several weeks, and came away an understanding what exactly our frustration was as a county. So I think that we need to rely on his experience and ability to get along with everybody, for him to kind of work with us do what can get done.
>> and not to speculate on his plan. Of course, none of us can know that. But from my an understanding having been going back and forth on this with the senator, with Commissioner Davis, with tom and joe, the envisioned progression of this is we approve this as a starting point, then we in a representative capacity meet with the senator about where he wants to go with it. My an understanding is he want a bill that is not specific to Travis County alone. After vetting it for burrs in that regard, then he want to take it to the delegation to discuss their concerns and how they feel it would be most advantageous to proceed, then after that, we start talking to stakeholders with a unified front from delegation and the affected counties to the private stakeholders, the land owners, the environmental community, the urban planning folks, and present a unified front as to how we envision this impacting them and eliciting their feedback. It's going to be a bumpy ride certainly, but I think a ride worth taking.
>> I understand the motion to bless just that. And come back when it's time but the clock is ticking. All in favor of the motion. That passes by unanimous vote. We'll start with Eckhardt summary.
>> okay.
>> and I guess we can just let this run week to week just in case we need it.
>> right.
>> correct.
>> we'll have this one on week to week and when we need to discuss it when it's time, we will be posted to do it. Okay. Next is d, draft bill relating to fees for services performed by a peace officer anybody here on this one ?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay. We do have a one-page bill on this one. What's the intention here ?
>> good morning, I'm bruce h helpan, county con stable. This issue was brought to our attention by jim connolly with the county attorney's office, and it regards collecting a warrant fee. A lot of counties have been billing for processing the warrant fee, not necessarily executing. It wasn't real clear in the statute whether you could bill for processing or you could only bill for executing a warrant. This cleans that up I don't think this particular issue is going to be controversial controversial. It's kind of a housekeeping clarification. I would like to make it a teeny bit more controversial if possible. I noticed when we were in in section, where the warrant fee is actually set, the warrant fee is $50 and has not been raised in ten years years. Travis County pushed for the increase from 35 to 50 about ten years ago. All that money goes to the counties and certainly $50 doesn't cover the cost of executing warrants in Travis County or any other county. And you are pushing this forward I would urge you to consider raisings the fee or pushing to raise the fee to $75. I have talked to folks over at the association of counties and a couple of folks at the appropriate committees at the legislature and we might stand a reasonable chance if make that happen.
>> how about 100 ?
>> 100 ?
>> and then live with 75. Versus 745 and having having having--75 and living with something less.
>> I will get with pbo folks to do a cost of service. I bet we could justify $100 easily when you look at the preparation of the warrant, searching, execution, book booking, incarceration. You know, it's a very expensive thing. If that's what you all want to go with, I would be happy to really work hard on this session.
>> I think we could justify that pretty easily and then have a little, you know, wiggle room, so to speak.
>> sure.
>> do we actually collect this fee ?
>> we collect a great deal of it, yes. There are people who lay out rather than pay the different fees that are owed but we collect a substantial amount of it.
>> and we're allowed to raise id ?
>> the legislature would. Hopefully they will.
>> I move that we do it with $100.
>> I second that.
>> discussion? All in favor of the motion? Show Commissioner Eckhardt, Gomez, dougherty voting in favor, and judge Biscoe present but not voting. I'll support $75. My an understanding of our policy is that it takes a full one or five-zee to support something. Commissioner Davis will be back next week is we'll have this back on.
>> I would make a substitute motion, procedurally. Can I make a substitute motion to bring it down to 7 75? I believe we need to get started.
>> that would be an original motion. The other one failed. Based on our procedures.
>> okay. I would move approval at $75.
>> second.
>> discussion and motion? All in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. The proposed language increasing the fee from 450 to 75450--from 50 to 75.
>> and not going down.
>> authority to go ahead and file that bill ?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> d is draft bill relating to the powers and duties of Travis County healthcare district's board of managers and to employee been for certain employees of district.
>> junk, --
>> judge, I believe that was pulled down for down--pulled down for today.
>> okay. That will be pulled on for next week. There are other here ?
>> we have a bill for stall us report. And she will take two minutes and go through if you would like.
>> we would like the but not right now.
>> okay.
>> let's take susan, our treasurer is here. You have a bill? Okay. Anybody else with a bill? We're going to let you do the wrap up today, talia. That's real important, by the way. Susan.
>> we are moving ahead on proposed legislation for gas gasby 45. We started doing research on this a long time ago and so the state is catching up. The bill that we had initially drafted included was the state and all instrumental tys of the state because the issue are the same for all governments in the state. The state is analyzing like we did in getting evidence together. And so we're getting traction on what we want to do. We had not met yet with our legislative delegation but I think it's time do that now. And so, what we would like to do is educate them. This bill is technical in nature and it just requires details. We have those details. The council of urban counties is endorsing it. The Texas association of county auditors has endorsed it. We're not really talking to anyone that thinks that this is a bad idea. But it is a complicated bill it has to do with countying, health benefits and money. And so--with accounting, health benefits and money. We are getting tractionlve one rendition came out of legislative counsel and we needed to make some accounting changes to make sure it does what we sought. The point of that bill is to create another comprehensive base i--basis of accounting for the state of Texas and other municipalities including us. It would include other components as well, so that we could report the healthcare opeb benefits on a manner consistent with Texas law and the authority and decisions that the Commissioners court, state of Texas, whoever the ruling bodies of these instrumental tys are. That's the essence of it. As soon as it is in final draft form we'll get you a copy of that bill to look at at. The complex part is it creates an accounting base to go on, so it's kind of an accounting thing. I feel good about it. It's just an enormous activity. The press, as you saw, the article in the stateman, a member of the editorial board called me. I guess we have worked on this so longrb it's kind of interesting, people's take. We have a rule making body that has no statutory hort in the state of Texas, saying that Texas government and all governments have an obligation, whether or not they legally do, and they are also setting up a mechanism which requires pre prefunding of those, or recognizing an enormous liability on our books. And it is interesting to me that people who have been concerned about property taxes and increase in cost of government kind of are willing to say, well, there's this huge obligation out there, you know, let's get it out there. So, it is extremely important. It needs to be dealt with accurately right now. Some of the issues, and I'm just saying this for public since the statesman has reported on it and will gen, in essence what this rule says is that they will take a plan that we have offered in the past, even though we have paid for a legal analysis of the legal status of that that says our plan is an annual plan, the plan that you dropt, the health plan that you adopt is adopted annually. Who is covered on that plan, the features of that plan, and what you pay, what the county pays, is an annual decision. The governmental accounting standards board says no, we're going to take that annual plan and we're going to proproject that forward to conversation every employee that is working at the county or the government now, that will project 30-50 years in the future. They are then saying, we are using an actuarial opinion to estimate that. Our research has shown that is a totally unreliable number. It has massive swings. Just the logic of it, it's bowels obvious, obvious-- obvious--it's obvious. We have plan here very difficult to project for one year, much less 30-50 years out. That's what this does. It then says, in order to fund all of this, we are telling you, their methodology says what you would have to fund on an on ongoing basis. And gasby says, we will not make you fund it. Of course they won't. They have a ruling making body that has no standing in the state of Texas. But what they call that entry is the annual required contribution. So they are putting a status on that. And if you do not fund that in advance, prefund all of those premiums, then you need to record a liability on your books, which is huge huge. Why is that important? It is important because in the state of Texas, because we are a government, there are only certain people that can commit the the taxpayers to a liability. That is a very important point. You can't say we'll lay it out there and figure out the liability, the Commissioners didn't agree to et but it's out there. That's what's happening to this bill. I am very concerned that it does not reflect the acts you take and only have you the authority to take. And also, that we are in a position where we should pre prefund that. Even a dissenting member of gasby said, there is no reason for a government to prefund this. That's what it requires. If we do not prefund it, it then assumes we have this massive liability out there. From an accounting viewpoint those are all ter bring mis misleading. From a legal viewpoint, we are giving almost legal authority to an organization that has no legal authority here, to set up an obligation on your behalf. The kind of buzz out there is, you can take care of that that is, you can cut cut all the benefits that these people get, and then you don't have to worry about this anymore. So it is a really, to me, unconscionable solution to a bad accounting rule. Bad accounting rule, not consistent with Texas law, extremely expensive, cannot be estimated in a reasonable basis, and certainly not, it doesn't give you the credit creditability that you would ever, to me, having sat here for 18 years, that there is enough definiteness about that number that you would property tax for it. And further more, if you do tax for it, you have to put an irrevocable employee trust outside of the government and can never get it back. Have you no liability, a number that cannot be estimated, and in order to comply have you to take the money and put it outside the control of the government. The if you don't do that, what you have is the enormous liability that keeps escalating and in a very short period of time, a crup of years, that liability will be larger than any debt, our total bonded indebt necessary. --i indebtness. It is extremely important from a ing viewpoint. The other thing, one can say how will people react to this rule. We don't have to guess. We know. Because fasby, which governs the private sector, put a rule very similar like this in the private sector and did not require it to be on the balance sheet but did require disclosure. More than half of the private sector firms stopped insuring their people based on that. We know what the emphasis is because they don't want this that on their financial statements. That was the reaction. Now, what does that mean? Well, we know what that's meant. It is one of the factors that has created the crisis in healthcare today because when you have people that do not have health insurance, those that do have the health insurance cover that uncompensated care on their premium. In October of 2006, I think it's called the Texas primary car coalition, did research that says in the state of Texas every private insurance premium annually picked up $1550 for un uncompensated care. So it's a mushroom type deal deal. People quit covering. Those that cover have to pay more. That premium becomes burden sow. They start dropping coverage coverage. The premiums become more. Now, for the private sector, it wasn't as important as it is for us the government, because we in the government have an obligation to pay for people who can't provide healthcare. We have a healthcare district. We have obligations here and the state has obligation obligations through medicare medicare. So if in fact people lose coverage because a government will not commit to the plan they have now with these very uncertain estimating techniques to fund this, and the only solution is to cut benefits, it is an ever-escalating problem. So what we have is a bad accounting rule, and it has tremendous financial impacts and legal impacts on taxpayers, on people who are getting benefits, and I'm kind of viewed as the out outlier on this because we are questioning this and saying, because they make that rule, does not mean we should not question it. And that's what we are doing doing. So, it is extremely important but it is very complex. So, it takes some time. We have been talking with state leadership on this as they are working through their issues as well. And now it is time for us to start educating our representatives. And so, we would like your direction to start that and either, however you think that's most effective, either mete with them individually and one of you meet with us, or if you can't do that, to call them and indicate your support. But we need to start doing that now, in my opinion.
>> susan, I have a couple of questions because I think these are the kinds of questions that are going to come up with the delegation. Under the proposal, it would be optional as to whether a county would avail themselves of this other basis of accounting or the gap ?
>> what you would do, what you would do is once this became statutory basis of accounting, if you thought you wanted to comply with gap and thought that legally you should, what it would require is simply the publishing of two statements statements. You would do one on this basis, which is very easy. This is what we do now. The more complex statement would be the gap statement and they would simply have to publish twompt it's a little bit of an inconvenience but that would be what they would have to do.
>> another question I think that the delegation would ask, and I'm unclear, well, I am actually fairly clear on it but I think they are going to want to know if we do to this other basis of accounting statewide, whether we will still be honestly assessing our future obligations regarding health benefits as governmental entities.
>> I think that's an excellent question because I think what has gotten confus confused in the rhetoric is the difference between planning, which we certainly have been doing, and estimating what those costs are, and putting an obligation on our audited financial statements. And there's a difference in the two. And that's the difference. What we are saying here is, these are the audited financial statements. This shows liabilities that are really liabilities. And it needs to show that. It is in fact, we know for us it is an annual process. It is not an ongoing guarantee. The Commissioners court has the tools to evaluate that on an ongoing basis. I don't think, Commissioner, this is a recognition which some people like to portray, that we are hiding. No, we are not. We are in our financial statements, if this bill passes, accurately reporting the acts and commitments that we have we are not projecting something that we do not have. I think the second part is, does this preclude us, for instance, from taking actuarial project shuns and say what might this cost in the future and should we make changes in of course we should. One should not preclude the other. One is planning and budgetary process. The other is the audited financial statements at the county which show obligation obligations that we have, approved to me by the Commissioners court since we are a government, and the amount that we are actually spending on that. So does that answer ?
>> it does. I think that's a distinction I think there are three things that are key.
>> okay.
>> ? N going to--in going to the legislature. One that a governmental entity can still use gap if they feel. Two, that it doesn't preclude, making the distinction between planning and auditing. And three, the distinction between a governmental body as opposed to a private entity as far as gasby and f fasby, think your point is very well taken. We have an added obligation if some one does not have health coverage to provide them healthcare. So we get the effects, if you mash on the balloon someplace it pops up someplace it, whereas a private entity would not. It could cut benefits and move on down the road.
>> any idea when there may be draft slace available ?
>> I am hopping judge in the next couple week. We had drafted one and it came out and there were things we thought needed to be changed and they went back in. Apparently there are so many things filed it's slow coming out.
>> okay. We need to authorize go ahead and start contacting the Travis County legislature delegation.
>> I think so.
>> we will have this listed specifically next week for that action.
>> right.
>> we'll have a resolution.
>> right.
>> talia will give you a little help so we have something listed in there that we share with the legislative delegation.
>> that would be great.
>> for the bill we expect to be drafted and filed. Okay.
>> I would just point out, while susan is sitting hire at the table, that we are working every single day, every week, on the other issue she has been very involved in, which is the appraisal revenue cap issue. We will probably be in a posture of want to go provide the court with almost a weekly update on that. There was a significant development yesterday which was the rereferral of the appraisal cap legislation from the ways and means committee back to the local government ways and means committee. That has been viewed as a significant signal because the chairman of the local government ways and means committee is an outspoken oh poniant of appraisal caps. That was thought that the reason the speaken might have sent the bill to a different committee was to avoid it being in front of a committee with a chairman opposed to it, but it is now back in that chairman's committee as of this morning morning. We would see that as maybe a positive sign. For full consideration, at least, of that issue. I want to bring to the court court's attention that that is one of the other huge dollar impact issues that the team is working on and that susan is working on literally on almost daily basis.
>> we'll post that specifically next week also.
>> yes, sir.
>> any other legislation before we get our summary? Ms. Gaster, thank you for your patience.
>> judge, I will keep this brief. Will you see on the report with the removal of the early retirees bill we now have 1 1 legislative issues that we are working on, notably the new county court at law number 8, the 30 days public notice has lapsed so we are now ready to file. We have our sponsors linds up, ready to go. And I'll be happy to answer any questions on anything else that we are working on.
>> questions? You were brief. Thank you for keeping your word.
>> thank you.
>> we'll have these these items posts next week. Move that we recess until 1: 1:30.
>> second.
>> all in favor. That passes unanimously
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, February 14, 2007 8:07 AM