Travis County Commissioners Court
March 6, 2007
Item 26
Item number 26. Considering take appropriate action on certain legislative issues and proposed bills before the 80th Texas legislature including the following: a is house bill 1517. Relating to the reporting of expenditure for legislative communication by local governmental entities. Hopefully or legislative consultants are nearby. And which one? B? B is a draft bill relating to financial accounting and reporting for the state and certain political subdivisions of the state.
>> we can bring this issue in front of the court and we have a formal bill filed and sponsors in the senate. Senator robert duncan has filed senate bill 1102 and companion bill, the exact same bill was filed in the house by representative vicky truit. And this is the legislation that allows us to account for other post employment benefits in a man their is consistent with Texas state law, consistent with the decisions made by the Commissioner's court and also it ises can tent with what we are doing -- consistent with what we are doing right now. One thing to note because there is a lot of, you know, flak about this now or discussion out there, is that what this bill does is it allows us to account just the way do we now, it is status quo, there is no change at all, and in truth, nothing regarding benefits has changes in Travis County nor the state of Texas. What has changed is a rule making body has come in, they started fire storms saying everyone has big unfunded liabilities and they were going to make them disclose it. Through research done we paid for an outside legal review, Travis County determined to have no such obligations so we don't want to put it on our books. Second three is not measurable, we hired two act warrial firms -- actuarial firms and the numbers were significantly different so therefore as the chief financial officer here it would be misleading to put this on the books that is immeasurable. What has happened in many states instead of fight the accounting issue they've chosen of taking the method of just cutting everyone's benefits and there is no question any more and that is an uncongressable reaction to an accounting rule and I know this court is aware of health issues, of insurance issues and has been working on it for years, so this bill solves an accounting problem. I’ve discussed this of course with the retirement committee. I met with the two associations representing the sheriff's office, they will be supporting us on this legislation. The Texas association of county auditors will be supporting this legislation. And the council of urban counties. What I need, would like is the court to sign a resolution of support and for chris shields and bob cam to make arrangements for us to start meeting with our own delegation on this so that is kind of where we are. I’m e-mailing you now in updates of what we're, what is happening now that we have an actual bill filed.
>> did you get something in writing from those particular support --
>> can we, sure. The auditors have already prepared a written resolution.
>> and I gets with those other folks showing support, included in that resolution.
>> yes, I can get that for.
>> I think it would be good to have the big picture when you go over there.
>> and the meetings that I have been involved in on this, the statement controller has also been at those meetings because their position is exactly the same as ours.
>> same they can into exactly the same as ours.
>> good to have all of them included.
>> I think there will be strong support for the bill because it is a support for cratd recording -- accurate recording. One of the things you will hear and I should say for the public to hear is gasby's response is very disappointing, as an accountant I find it very disappointing and instead of dealing with the kind of issues they are doing more of the fire storm, you will be sorry, the bond raiders will do this you will be sorry. We've met with, as you know, the bond rating firms and we've given them our reed on this and shown them the research we've done, one of the lawyers that we have contracted with and I actually, two of them, and I met with the chief of the municipal division which deals with our security, 6 the security exchange commission to explain what we are doing, travis coup see it not -- county is not doing anything sneaky, we are not going to cash basis accounting, we are not doing anything irresponsible, at the end of the day I and you want to put out financial statements that fairly represent the financial position of this county in concert with the laws of the state, that is just exactly what this is, and we have done as much research as we can. This is not a power play between the state of Texas and gazby although they are trying to portray it that way. It is unfortunate in my opinion as a professional accountant that I had to go to the legislature to solve an accounting problem but I’m grateful they are willing to look at it.
>> what are those number, the numbers again.
>> senate bill 1102, judge, and house bill 2365.
>> the other one was 11 what?
>> 1102 is the senate bill and the house bill is 2365, they were both filed on Friday so they are not yet referred to committee.
>> okay. Executing supporting resolution for both, ask our consultants to check with the legislative delegation, get you an audience with them and provide any other support necessary.
>> thank you.
>> second by Commissioner Davis. Discussion? All in favor. That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.qú
>> good morning, judge.
>> good morning.
>> the committee met last night until early this morning. Hp 1517 was left pending in committee. Don spoke on the bill, americans for prosperity spoke on the bill and it is still being be considered.
>> is that wish we've taken a po -- one we've taken position on?
>> yet yes, sir, we voted to oppose the original version of the bill but they are working on substitution language and have been very willing to hear everybody's opinions, so that is why the bill has been left pending to consider all the options.
>> we gave them in writing issues that we had with it?
>> yes, we did.
>> the bill is improve, I will say that.
>> on a scale of one to ten is it up there around eight or nine now or two or three?
>> there are some, I think susan will probably address this, in terming of how the information -- terms of how the information reportled by the governmental entities has been a question. Susan, you want to address this.
>> just understand since I’ve been work thong other thing the latest -- working on this other thing, the latest substitute has legislation that I can't imagine how you put on your financial statements. First of all the lean items are not aggregated by cost, cost of testifying, there is no line item like that and we have no method of actually calculating that, I just, you know if they want to report, I think they ought to pay us for the report to be honest this is more work that do we for them which takes property tax money, but I can't see how we can possibly agree that that is going to be the audited financial statement. I don't even know how I would fit it in there because we don't go to that level, it is like saying we need to show how many pencils we bought in the financial report, well we don't show the financial report detail down to pencils so in plain language that is my frustration with it.
>> other urban counties engaged?
>> oh yes. The cities and counties.
>> okay, any action required today?
>> no.
>> why don't with you put up k. I know the officers are eager to get back to work. K is an added item, considering take appropriate action to support the filing of a bill. There is no bill filed yet but with you expect one to be filed this week. And have a number. Okay. Close this meeting to defer bill says too health benefits. Or how would that be addressed later on.
>> judge, it is my understanding from talking with mr. Escamilla, that this bill that we have presented is not permissive, and if the county opts to not discuss healthcare benefits with the employees associations, there is literally nothing we can do about it. So we do not anticipate it affecting the healthcare benefits any differently than what we currently have now that this bill will just really put a formality in place for meeting and conferring with the Commissioners on how we discussion benefits and compensation.
>> it is permissive.
>> yes, sir.
>> questions?
>> judge, whoever wants to take a stab at this, whether it is sarah with her legal back ground or some of our legal people. For people watching, somebody lay out specifically and exactly what meet and confer means. I mean it is a very confusing, to the public, I mean who wants to take a stab at that?
>> want me to take a stab at it.
>> sure.
>> meet and confer gives the sheriff's department the ability to Decemberition nate -- designatean organization to negotiate on their behalf. Ifit doesn't give them the right to strike, it only gives them the ability to say this organization and this person is the head of this organize say we collectively grow negotiate on our behalf with our employer. Is that an accurate --
>> yes. Collective bargaining without the ability to strike.
>> in other words, there are conditions of work and a lot of other things that can be brought to the table under that type of format. Brought by the agent, the organizations that would be, as she stated, the designees but also sitting at the table with management management being the Commissioner's court at the top of the pyramid here and we negotiate on several thing bus however, as he stated permissive and whether or not we elect to hear or entertain that particular subject matter, they don't have to s. That basically also what you are talking about, it is more than a collective bargaining setting that would be places on the meet and confer concept.
>> that is correct k. Law enforcement strike?
>> no.
>> it has nothing to do with meet and confer.
>> it is not permitted under meet and confer you would section 158 and it is not permitted under 174 of collective bargaining and this is not a collective bargaining bill and the difference between two is there is nothing binding to the court that said you have to sit down with us and discuss wages and compensation but if you elect to, you can.
>> I think that is a very important distinction.
>> very.
>> a lot of people will say collective bargaining and that raises red flags for people and some don't know what collective bargaining means and this is a meet and confer where all it is is, let's take hypothetical. Hypothetical without a meet and confer, we will say the sheriff but of course the sheriff is behind this bill, so I don't believe the sheriff would do this, but let's say snidely sheriff has folks coming to him to negotiate regarding employee benefits and he decides he doesn't like those so he ditches ditches those folks and gets more friend three his position. Meet and confer is a circumstance where there is a designated entity and individual within that entity that the rank and file has chosen to negotiate on their behalf.
>> so given the fact that you've got two associations, the associations just want to make sure that they have a spot at the table to be able to be, to represent both corrections and law enforcement and that is what the meet and confer would give them the opportunity do, to make sure that they have that opportunity to sit before us.
>> yes, sir, it is just a more formal way of that, we current business.
>> so today you are asking for our support of a resolution, generally supportive I have meet and confer.
>> yes for both associations.
>> then when the actual bill is drafted we will have an opportunity to review it?
>> absolutely and nibble europe back up -- I believe in your back up material you have a draft version of the bill and it is my understanding that it is in legislative council, it has been reviewed. The only thing that has changed is on the second page under 158.073, number one, I believe is not going to say law enforcement and corrections officers, it is going to say government employees which is more along the lines much what that section 158 currently reads. So it won't say employees employees associations Texas will just say public -- associations, it will just say public employees so other than that it is my interpretation and judge, I forwarded you the e-mails last night from the representative's chief of staff they don't anticipate any other changes from this bill from legislative council.
>> so why do people, why would someone not want to allow meet and confer? What would be the practical reason?
>> well, some people do not feel that employees need a voice in the way they are compensated or they receive benefits from their employer. Quite frankly. And you know, that would be a reason why people would oppose this type of legislation.
>> does meet and confer force some sort of an arbitration or some, let's say you come in and the court is dealing with you and you don't like, I mean that is not acceptable to us. I mean, does meet andand confer force someone to get into mediation, arbitration, you know, help me out here, are you forced to be able to go somewhere and say I don't like your responses and so here is what meet and confer allows us to move other than you all just saying we don't want to deal with you.
>> I don't believe, Commissioner, under this bill that you are force understood arbitration. Could you agree offer meet and confer with the association and if you chose to enter into an agreement as a result of your negotiations,ing that agreement, if you want it could include an arbitration provision with regard to its enforcement.
>> it could be a year-to-year, right it could be undone after that agreement period, right?
>> it is pretty much up to the parties. First of all you don't have to enter into an agreement. But if you entered into an agreement it could include arbitration as part of that agreement that is the way I understand the bill.
>> that is exactly the way mr. Escamilla and the drafter of the bill and the associations designed it that if we all agree to go to an arbitrator after we come to an agreement, then we can but it is not necessary.
>> permissive.
>> exactly, the parties have to agree to it, it is not something we can force the county into doing.
>> beyond why anybody wouldn't allow you.to come and negotiate with us. I mean what kind of employer is not going to sit down with, you know, a workforce and say, you know, we do want to hear what your needs are. Styles you can't meet need -- sometimes you can't meet need buzz my gosh to not be willing and I don't even know why it takes through get somebody to do this. Seems like you would have a way to do this even though you can't strike, I mean what employer wants a major workforce out there, you know, highly up -- up September over not being able to feel like they've got a spot at the table so I don't see any reason in the yorld we -- in the world why we wouldn't be supportive in a meet and confer bill.
>> let's stay again this formalizes the procedure that has taken place with the sheriff's associations and the Commissioner's court to date.
>> that is absolutely right.
>> second.
>> my office put in the back up a resolution that we support it back in March of 1999.
>> yes, sir.
>> so that language is what you are hoping for.
>> I don't have a new resolution, do you have a drafted.
>> the other one came in also, the 99 one and also the new one.
>> the only difference in the two is our new bill allows nor two associations to be recognized.
>> okay.
>> so in 1999 also.
>> yes, sir.
>> when the bill is drafted very well and opportunity to address that in court. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all.
>> thank you all very much. B. House bill allowing a state mandate impressed on the county provided the page to the county of the cost we supported this last time.
>> yes, sir, it was left on the agenda, I think just as an update and the bill has been left pending in committee and we will continue to support the bill.
>> okay. Anything new on c? Precinct two Commissioner thinks we can pull or postpone this. Anything we need to discuss today?
>> no.
>> d, consider and take appropriate action on request for regulation of land use authority for Travis County or other counties.
>> judge, yes, we did, I picked up a bill this morning from senator watson's office on the way here so we've got copies for the court and staff but we haven't reviewed it.
>> I would still like to have a copy of it.
>> before we leave, we will leave it with you. In fact, if you would like to see if now --
>> I understand there is a press conference on Friday around the filing thank you so much bill. -- filing of this bill. Let's take a look at it between now and next session. Somebody in the court will take one of these. You will all take a look at it between now and next week.
>> yes, sir. Let me just add, when the bill was given to us, they said there would be some changes with respect to the scope of those provisions and that it would be limited only to Williamson and Travis County and it will also be some restriction which I’m not completely clear on that addresses jurisdiction with regard to city, certain city limits out there. And I don't have that amendment but we will get that for you and get a clarification before next week but there is a modification to the draft that you have there.
>> my understanding is the intended way of, the way it is intended to work that it would be 15 miles from the center line on either direction of 130 would give counties that additional power but if that 15-mile swath came in contact with the city limits that the city limits, the city authority takes precedence.
>> called inuncorp rated area so -- unincorporated area so that is significant from that line, that is what we are talking about here, large use to that 50--mile radius is significant in dealing with the area and as the Commissioner said if it does encroach in the city's municipality, jurisdictions, then that is what it would be so modification coming on that --
>> in terms of the jurisdictional extent.
>> yes.
>> of the language, that is correct. We will try to get that as soon as positive to believe your office.
>> so -- as soon as possible to your office.
>> so this bill almost completely has to do with sh 130. I mean, the 15 miles from center line so this is not something you take and drop it into western Travis County and say, I mean unless we get a toll road over there and get to do the same Commissioner, that is my understanding. I have not red the bill since I -- read the bill since I picked it up and joe has got my copy so I’m disadvantaged.
>> [laughter]
>> that is all right. We'll read it.
>> we could get that before next Tuesday.
>> sure.
>> is re -- f is relatinglatino exemption of an authorized emergency vehicle. Anything new?
>> no.
>> last week we supported the county on the emergency vehicles, right? Whether they were responding to some sort of emergency event or not. We gave them our assurance there will be no joyriding by county employees. Whenever we are out there, it is serious business I take it.
>> exactly.
>> the answer to that is yes.
>> judge, you go and I cannot ride on the toll road out to play golf.
>> absolutely.
>> we will have that back on next week in case there is some response. By the way, kimberly pierce ask that we postpone item 26 h. Put that on I think for discussion. G, we discussed a little bit last week. House bill 345 relating to the collateralization of certain public funds.
>> [sneeze]
>> bless you.
>> thank you.
>> good morning, I’m investment manager for Travis County and here with the treasurer. We talked about this bill last week. There has been some additional information but no concrete changes in the bill at this point. However, it is scheduled for hearing this coming Monday. And so we are asking for you to look at the letter, the draft letter that is part of europe back up and -- part of your back up and see if you are comfort within that and if you can declare in its present form that you cannot support the bill which is what I would recommend. We did have a meeting on Thursday with representative flynn in his office, he is the author of the bill, and deloris is going to tell you about that meeting.
>> briefly, we met with representatives, mary myself and, she represents gtot and the lobbyist from, for the county treasurer's association in discussing the bill. We just expressed our concern representative flynn asking him to make not changes but amendments to the bill and he was very receptive to that so we talked to him for about an hour and a half and just good day to log of exchanging information, hour concerns, his concern, our explanations, his explanations so we kind of got to perhaps there might be a substitution but we have not seen a substitute bill and so I’m sure that will be laid out probably on Monday when we have the hearing in committee.
>> and he was very gracious but we really were not promised any concrete amendments. They also said that the bill is very short deliberately and it is like six page, some of the other states are 50 pages that have pooled collateral. They deliberately did it that way because they talked to states that said we wished they hadn't put so many details in it so that the plan is to leave it sort of empty in a lot of different areas and allow the state agency in this case it would be the compcomptroller, to work out the details. They suggested that perhaps we might be able to work with the comptroller on those details and we hope very much that we will be able to do that as she said, if there is a substitute bill perhaps it will include some of our concerns. The problem is at this moment we really don't have any of that down on paper, as we are really kind of speculating and a sub statute bill could also contain some more things that we would be concerned about. There is no guarantee the changes would be in our favor. So I wanted to just go down the list of the amendments that we were concerned about in this letter and if you are uncomfort within any of them, of course we can take them out. The first one is providing a larger margin of required coverage, the county already does this. S but that it would automatically in the pool, the securities which experience more market value volatility would have a larger coverage so that if the market value went down, we still would be above 102%. The second one this is a new hide, making the state of Texas responsible for replacing funds in the event the pledged clat value not available and this is kind of a big statement, I don't know that the state would ever grow that but at the same time right now we, the local entities are responsible for making sure that our public funds are collateralized so that they are safe. In this bill, as it is now written, we would get absolutely no reports ever about how much collateral we had. How can we continue to be responsible if we don't know how much is out there. And you can't ask the banks to be responsible, they are the ones that we're concerned about going under. So safety only party left in the group fan they are not responsible then there really isn't any responsibility here at all.
>> which makes the state not responsible for the reports but replacing the funds.
>> exactly, right, exactly. Right now we can send ours to the federal reserve so we have some assurance there if the federal reserve goes under that we are going to get our money back. Right now we have no assurance that where is the money going to come from. We don't know.
>> one of the bills the money doesn't go to the federal reserve, it goes state.
>> under the bill it doesn't really say, it says the state controller will decide.
>> should we set that here there? Funds or deposit it with the federal reserve, which guarantees them. If funs were place with the state --
>> if is a third party, you would be a third party. Right now Travis County for the federal reserve but other counties are with like another bank, other than their depository or some place else.
>> I assume wavelength slate -- we have a legislator that knows as much about this as I do naught in parenthesis and I will understand.
>> what are you suggesting?
>> one or two more sentences that basically set forth facts that are important. Be current complete money is placed with the federal reserve which guarantee it is. Right? If the money is place with the state then --
>> okay, what we have now are securities. Which are placed with the federal reserve and the federal reserve guarantees to us that they are in trust right now.
>> you are asking the state to be in the place of the federal reserve, right? Making the state of Texas responsible for replacing funds.
>> right.
>> guaranteeing them basically, you say funds, you don't say pledges or whatever.
>> securities.
>> whatever the facts are.
>> okay.
>> on its face, it isral big deal but what you are saying is that hey, if we treat you like you are the federal reserve, we want you to treat us like you were the federal reserve too.
>> yeah, I see what you are saying.
>> to make it a little bit more detailed.
>> perhaps it would be helpful under each bull throat put a paren, Travis County current practice is 110%, on the second bullet, Travis County current practice is to place security with the federal reserve because the federal reserve guarantees those funds.
>> =, they don't -- what they barnty is the -- guarantee is the securities are there.
>> right.
>> we want the state to warnty that the securities are -- guarantee that the securities are there.
>> right. Okay.
>> which is what I’m hearing.
>> right.
>> they can send they anywhere torque africa, mexico.
>> but I’m right in my assumption the average legislator will know about as much as we do about the specifics of this.
>> yes, sir.
>> what you are say, what you are recommending in the bill is a bill dee deal be a big changes.
>> oh yes. And the third one is insuring that accrued interest on deposits continues to be collateralized and that is true under current law but this law would change that.
>> but press a paren there saying as it is under current law.
>> right.
>> ensuring that collateral securities can not be used in a securities lending program, securities lending program basically you buy a treasury bill and then you lend it out to somebody who wants it and is willing to pay you interest for it and it is a way of getting, squeezing just a little more return out of your investments. But if they were lent out when we needed them, then this would, you know, at best delay our ability to get our funds back if the bank went under. And that is not addressed in the bill currently. Did have you a paren for that one?
>> well how is it done today?
>> we can not do that, the federal reserve does not have such a secures lending program, they simply keep the securities securities --
>> I put the paren as the federal reserve currently does not allow that.
>> okay. Argue with the federal reserve?
>> really.
>> okay this next one, removing language inspect would allow the comp trolltory follow current -- comp toller to follow the current law to the custodian to the extent practical. What that does is really takes away the current regulations about the custodian. All you have to say is well that is not really practical. I’m not sure why you would put that in the bill but that is in there.
>> the standard would be what is in place today and it is, what?
>> well under the collateral act there is a list of thing that custodian has to follow, has to be qualified, it has to have these considerations, and I’m sorry, I can't read them off for you, I don't have them with me.
>> to the extent practical is not part of the deal originally.
>> not currently.
>> not today.
>> 2257 deals with the collateral act, it will dilute it and we noticed as we went on into the bell there are -- the bill there are certain areas that repeal the public funds investment act and the collateral act and they go we really didn't know about that, well no because they are not aware of if as well so we've added that language as well. It dilutes the --
>> that is a state act, a Texas act.
>> yes, sir, the laws we are talking about this changing are state laws.
>> so perhaps a paren on there keep the current standards embodied in the present law.
>> I would use grander language than that.
>> okay. Don't mess with it.
>> you must continue to protect public dollarss with the same high standards that we have in place and whatever it is.
>> okay. We will add that.
>> by the way, when you all testify at this hearing you've got to look credible.
>> [laughter] and a little upset.
>> I think I was on Thursday because the representative goes now I’m going to try to be as nice as I can and explaining in and I went okay did come across a little too strong. But I was telling him do you all want to micro manage county government and he was trying to explain that to us.
>> I will bent you had some explaining could you do to him about exactly how collateralization works.
>> he didn't want to listen to that. The next one is the bill as it is currently written provides reports to the comptroller but we are asking that the government entity whose public funds we are talking about here also get the reports. And those reports would replace the ones we currently receive from the federal reserve.
>> okay.
>> okay, the next one has to do with our auditors. They cannot do an audit of Travis County without having information about the collateral protection that we had during the year and the bill doesn't provide that any of that information could be given to our auditors.
>> so who is government here? Counties? Citizens.
>> all level entities, municipalities, districts. Everybody. That means everybody that is effected by the collateral bill and that is most of us.
>> local governments.
>> yeah, I’ll add local.
>> necessary to complete their annual audit and protect public funds.
>> true. The auditor to protect public funds, am I right.
>> certainly, right now they write the federal reserve and say, you know, were they collateralized, they write or bank, they confirm what we tell them.
>> it is collateralization sounds a little bit academic but the bottom line is that you really are talking about public treasury.
>> yes. The safety of it, yes.
>> okay. I’m trying to get worked up myself
>> [laughter]
>> the next one is simply that it dulles require -- does require financial statements to be sent to the comptroller and we suggest those should be the ones that the financial institutions have to prepare that are audited.
>> the financial statements were sent wit custodian of the clap rat.
>> by the financial institutions, that is the bank, the banks that we would do business with that we have our funds in that we are trying to keep safe.
>> then I think it should say that, required financial statements from the financial institutions be audited.
>> did he admit his intention was not to repeal this act that references this last bullet?
>> not really. Representative flynn did say that his intention was not to remove the accrued interest from the funds that we're getting lateraled, -- laterallized than is the only thing he said in that vain vain.
>> okay. So the state treasurer's association.
>> county treasurers.
>> county. Statewide snow statewide, yes, sir.
>> you were the --
>> the government treasurer's organization of Texas, we have over 200 local governments as members. 10 of those are counties so the other 290 or so are mostly cities, we have about 100 cities including the city of Austin. School districts, appraisal districts, all those other local governments that would be effected.
>> and art did go with us from the city of Austin, the treasurer.
>> did he.
>> is this on the cuc's radar?
>> yes, judge, we have been communicating with urban counties and they are, we passed on mary's memo and they are looking into it and circulate it can but we haven't had a report back yet.
>> the counties and school districts.
>> and the school districts and all that. We haven't talked to them have we?
>> is there astatewide school district association.
>> yes, there is.
>> we believe this is a big deal, that is what I’m hearing you youall saying.
>> fasby should weigh in on that, Texas associations school boards, is that correct.
>> that's correct.
>> we can get those change today, by early afternoon we will get the court to sign them. As we have here.
>> great, thank you so much.
>> bob. Those changes enough?
>> that will give us plenty to go over there and talk to them about. That is good.
>> I have a question, do you think the sub statute bill will be filed like Monday or can it be done at the committee hearing, is that when we should effect hear? T.
>> you won't get to read it likely before, it is commonly the case you will not get to see the bill before you testify which is awkward so adjust your comments on the bill that you have if we can get a copy of the substitute which we will try to do, we will certaincally and provide it to you.
>> all right.
>> ahead of time.
>> okay, thank you, we appreciate it. We appreciate your support.
>> the motion.
>> we just voted approval with the amendments right.
>> right.
>> second?
>> discussion? All those in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. And we will try to get that signed this afternoon. Thank you. Okay. I believe our medical examiner indicated to me in I that he wishes to delay further consideration of. I will put postpone here and confirm that with danny and the doctor, I think he is using another strategy.
>> judge, if I may, the item is on the agenda for the court to officially full down.
>> move that we officially null item down. Discuss discussion? I thought I would call it conversation. All those in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you very much. 8j, discussion of other bills d legislative issues as necessary.
>> judge, the only thing we might do is again we have the single sheet, the bill status report and such on a few of those. Starting with the easy one, number six there, that has been voted out of committee on the 147th district court clean um, then last evening the county court at law, number 8 bill was voted out of committee. And those have both gone, went to local last night, I think. 355 did go to the local and con sent calendar. On the misdemeanor sighdation bill, -- citation bill, those should be filed this week and there is also a similar bill out there that we are going to try to work with.
>> j is just --
>> a copy of what you are saying right now.
>> it should have been handed out. Here is an extra.
>> well anyway, I will need to get a copy.
>> here is an extra one.
>> great, thanks, tha number 8 t fee recovery bill. This was the bill that council brought in last week to raise that warn fee from $50 to $57 and we still don't have a responser, it is not a popular bill just because it has been difficult to pass fee bills over there as you know judge, the last couple years, particularly one that is involved, the percent that pays this is the defendant so any time there is another fee put on a defendant because there is so many right now that we get a lot of resistance so we will continue to try to get someone to interdeuce bill. We do have -- introduce that bill. We have support from Travis County that shows that you spend a lot more in resources than you get in this fee and you can justify raising it to $75. We've also good could be fir face -- got that confirmation from dallas county that their costs exceed what they get for the fee and we are try to get that from harris as well. I think we get plenty of support from other counties because it is a fee bill and everyone is looking for additional fees, particular flee that area, but it is going to be a tough bill there is another part of that bill as you might recall that wanted to change some language around but that language really doesn't have any significant impact on the sections, just clarifying some law. It doesn't impact your act to collect the fee in anyway, it hasn't ban problem, so this really now is coming out as a fee bill, nothing else and so I just wanted to make you aware of that, the filing dead shrine Friday -- deadline is Friday and it is Tuesday but we will see if we can get someone to the 9th.
>> that is any.
>> I thought it was a couple Fridays back.
>> we were hoping that but --
>> that is the day to get it turned in for drafting in order to get it back in time to meet the filing deadline of Friday --
>> no, sir, there is stale rule that permitting filing a bill after the deadline but required a suspension of the bills but required a two-thirds vote, it is regularly done in the senate almost without discussion as a courtesy to other senators so there will be many more senate billsbills fild after the deadline number the house it is done less frequently, kind of automatically for bills that are of no controversy but a controversial bill would likely no longer be able to be filed in the house. Those bill boys to make sure the house vote to the county. 290 east, in the unincorporated area. This is amicable for -- apliccle for the folks using the same language for the billboard, prohibition of billboards in 71 71 west and sufficient like that I wonder where we are on that and why we can't get there, it bothers me we are not able to do what we can do.
>> we need some languagenism guess similar to what they have --
>> we also need approval from the court to move forward and file that I mean if we are going to file a bill we've got until Friday or we can do it by amendment but --
>> cover what the --
>> I think what matters is going through those bills and seeing if any get to where we want to go and supporting them.
>> 137 is generic but then again, it appears there may have to be specificity. There is already language that is out there and available.
>> there are bills after that deal with the topic. The question is whether or not the amendment would be germane to that bill and we don't know if it is germane until we see the language.
>> ii think I will t is two or three sessions we've gone through to make sure that the highways over precinct one are covered afternoon also probably precinct four also but a I do have some concern about those type of billboards that have been in place that really are unacceptable to that part of the county.
>> can you all tell us which bills were being filed and which are being thought of at this .
>> the bill generally with billboards.
>> I know there were two specifically you brought to us and I heard of a their is actually statewide. Bill, is 37.
>> senator watson has bill, sb 669, it is just a list right now. It includes those kinds of ideas but again we would have to know specifically what we wanted to add into the bill to find out it really was good place for it.
>> what I would like to see happen is we don't do anything this late in the legislative session and of course after the road improvements have taken place on what they are doing on 290 and other areas in the community that hey, we missed the deadline, here are billboards all over the place and we've protected one part of the county and not the other part of the county and that is my concern yoon know any other way to express it but we need protection on the eastern side just like we are protecting the western side.
>> we have bills from representative bolton, senator senator watson, nelson which is statewide, and I think perhaps the recommended action is why don't we look at those texts and fee that is where we need to go and then we can bring it to the next session about supporting that text or amend, one of -- amending one of the bill's text to cover. Would that be appropriate.
>> of the move this forward is next Tuesday have a specific list of roads, I guess would help to have a specific bill too that we might be able to add our roads to. Is that what I’m hearing.
>> I don't know what roads you want to include. We don't have that.
>> that is next Tuesday but we have to figure out what we might be able to attach them to.
>> if you will give us a list much the roads we will look at all the bills that were out there and determine if one of those is an appropriate vehicle to draw list with.
>> and what I’m going to ask tnr to do is look at those, such as 209 in the unincorporated area and 969 and I think 71 may be also context of identifying those roads in the unincorporated area that we can protect because the city regulatessity own so I’m asking tnr to assist in identifying these roads and brick back next teak -- bring it back next Tuesday.
>> that would be a huge help. The next step though is we are going to have to go to those aughters and get permission to amend that bill.
>> I understand. Those bills prohibit billboards period or certain types of billboards?
>> I think the different bills have different specifications, some include certain restrictions and some 6 the more scenic routes were complete prohibition.
>> and some are about moving billboards in conjunction with the expansion or building of roadways there are a variety of them, judge.
>> sponsors.
>> sir, I think there is a general statement that an author of one of those bills is not going to object to our inclusion unless it would kill their bill, meaning that someone would, you know, have objection who didn't already have on jebs to the -- objection to the bill as a em. Is that what they are called billboards.
>> yes, sir.
>> okay. Anything else under the other bills and legislative issues?
>> the only other thing is number 12 that route of execution we talked about so much and we now have, there are authors that are going to file that women representative mark strama in Travis County is going to do it in the house and senator west going to do it in the senate. I don't believe they've been pas out that there is a bill filed by senator duncan that addresses a number of the issues that she brought to the court last week that have to do with the intersection of the criminal justice system and the mentally ill. The bill that senator duncan has filevery much along the lines w456 judge homegar ten brought to the court and the court approached. She has written a lower senator duncan which asks him to make some additional adjustments to his legislation, very well done, and very specific along with the changes that were asked and we have provided all that to senator duncan's staff and we should be hearing back from them , we be quiet too and let them quietly go away.
>> I think you've been lulled to sleep, judge. I would not think those have gone way. I think we will have an aprical cap or rev
>> I think that she he that san very prepared on the subject, if she is still here.
>> I will go over and testify if it comes up, as long system.
>> is it the position of the court to po pose revenue caps -- oppose revenue caps, I guess is the question it has been in the past.
>> I think so. During the last few sessions this has come up we have pretty much consistently opposed them right?
>> yes, sir, I think that we owe a reading to each of these, there must be 30 or more bills filed. And we need to be specific to each bill and we may have different objections to each bill and there are some that are more objectionable than others but the general fillphilosophy f the court has been in opposition to all these measures. There have been some ideas againing to float around that at some point public unity such as the counties may find acceptable. But I don't know that we are there yet.
>> we need to pull our own letters and review them?
>> probably.
>> the best parts and come up with a master letter for '07. I don't know that -- the other bill seems to be a whole lot of them that many.
>> there is quite a lot of them and, judge, we've added to the bill track some other pieces of that puzzle that don't say revenue cap or appraisal cap on them. For example this past week, one of the recommendations of the commission report was to enable counties to adopt up to a 1/2 cent sales talk to always for property tax relief. That legislation was filed, actually ithere is a sales price disclosure bills which there are three or four and a couple of those were heard this past week in committee and received a pretty favorable, you know, reception from the committee members, so that is kind of related to the whole issue of appraisal as well. So it is a whole kind of body of bills that relates to this subject, all of which are basically on our monitoring list right now.
>> kind of pop...
>> [pause in captioning.]
>> I think part of the answer to your question, as you all know susan has just done a phenomenal job on this issue, recognized the leading spokesperson on this issue maybe and it provided really good information be a good data and I think is one of the reasons why the issue is has been a little bit stalled out but I don't thing it has gone away and the issue that I think you may be referring to, considerations that we've -- conversations that we've had with the court and in private we have suggested two scenarios that we want to at least have in the court's mind, one is that we could get run over here and if we're going to get run over we perceive that we are going to get run over associate some point it might make sense for us to try to create some sort of reasonable exceptions to have those items which are most outside our control that are important budget drivers such as the criminal jugs tis system or the -- justice system or the possibility of terrorism or other types of homeland security crisis that require the court to spend money. And could, under the way these laws are currently written, create a real crisis in the budget of the county. The other change we have suggested to the court at various points is that at some point it may make sense for us to go to the sponsors of these bills and offer to work with them to try to find a middle ground that we can live with. There are you know numbers, you know, that are below which, you know, there are changes we could potentially live with, not some of the ones that have been filed but the percentages raised at this point it does not necessarily effect Travis County there may be an example for fast-protocounties or fast-growth counties should be --
>> put it this way, they are impacted very differently by type of legislation than slow-growth counties were and the sledgelation proposepretty much a one size fits all concept. With you know so we may have room to talk about that and so far, we have not done that to my knowledge, none of the other counsel trees done that, we've not tried to engage in potentially pursue avenues that might enable us to find a middle ground.
>> horribles examples, -- exemption, saying these are the drivers, these are things that are possible, these are the things that are probable as far as drivers in our budget that are outside of our control and would seriously impact the quality of life and the seattle of the citizens, I think that is a great idea.
>> the other change really no dollars, a million dollars more in property taxes to have that election. The other thing is fingerprint voters vote no, what does that mean with regard to our requirement so if for instance we say you know of in order to pay for indigent defense, using that as an example, we need this increase to go over whatever the slim and the roll back is no, we don't want that do to provide it or have the people spoken. That is an interesting question when they start talking about bringing these people, bring these things on the ballot. What does that mean if the citizens say no.
>> I’m not sure you can totally defend our budgets in the last four or five years. You have done a very good job of giving me lots of great explanations about where dollars have been spent. Pete think that government doesn't spend money efficiently. I mean, now, it will be gut wrenching to go okay, what do we not spend money on.
>> they saying you don't want to do the indigent attorneys fees, no, we want you to be a good-run government and you make the calls on how you, you know, fun those things, it is not easy, I mean, but I don't think that you can just tell people I don't want to be told, you know what, to do unless of course you are willing to prove to people so you don't have to tell me because I’m not going to spend monies there I’m going to be very and we have a fiduciary responsibility to run county, you know county government as frugally as we can, but I can't, I can't defend and I don't think that many people with defend some of the increases that we've had year after year after year. And I think that, you know that we have a chance to get some egg on our face saying you can't tell us to do that. And that is the fear that I have have.to this issue is if do you have the opportunity to visit with a member of the Travis County delegation, since this does impact you, they are interested in what you think and how you feel on this and right now it has been sort of a yes or no issue but there are a lot of in between positions on this that I think that discussion would help, particularly if the bills, as do they come down if you've had those communetations -- communications with the Travis County delegation it will help
>> [one moment please for change in captioners] typically that's health and human services.
>> emergency medical services
>> yeah. We don't have to have those. But the level of public safety, you know, dramatically decreases, I think, with shh of the things that we do. Ain't nobody say us unfunded mandates. Doesn't bother anybody to say counties pick this stuff up. The unfunded mandates. Yet these are requirements that -- that kind of -- that come into play, so it's a struggle. Really is a struggle and a challenge trying to deal with all of us. Of -- all of it. You have to wait and see.
>> the challenge is to be more factual, I think. To respond to it. It's easy to say you've been political, so we will be political, too. But they have the votes at the legislature and we don't. But they should know some of these big actions will have some impact. Not only will be bad, some people that suffer at the local legal. But that may be response to Commissioner eckhardt's discussion, if we can get some updated impacts on Travis County, we might start at least get that to the Travis County delegation. We hav and -- and in a lot of respects this is like the bread winning spouse who sets the -- the budget to -- to despite the fact that the state -- there's no way I can buy groceries on this. It's very similar. So -- so I think what we need to do is provide them, you know, the grocery bill.
>> that's what has been persuasive that we have brought forward, those factual --
>> yeah.
>> judge, on a very related subject, in the past you have expressed -- you have expressed concerns about one particular area where the county spends money which is in the criminal justice system and particularly when we get to the circumstance where -- where state prisoners remain in county facilities for an extended period of time. As -- as I believe you know, that situation has been worsening over the last few years and is projected to -- to continue to worsen. But there are a number of initiates underway this session, I think that I mentioned them briefly to the court in a previous meeting that are being pushed by the chairman of the house corrections committee in the house and the senate criminal justice committee, john whitmire and jerry madden, a very respected conservative republican and a -- john whitmire have come together on a proposal who was intended to dramatically reduce jail populations through essentially providing treatment and other services that -- that are less expensive and potentially smarter ways to deal with portions of the prison population. That is happening, it is not in the form of a -- of a bill, so we don't have a bill to put on track here. It's an appropriations issue. In terms of the legislature appropriating money for certain services. It takes several different forms. One that's just very compelling is -- is there are -- there are -- I don't have the number exactly, but approximately 2,000 felons who have been paroled who -- who have remained in jail for several months after they have been paroled because there are no facilities halfway house or treatment facilities for them to go to. Tdcj is out of space, they have a choice of building additional prison beds, which is what was originally proposed in the budget, or they could build halfway house or treatment facilities. And take those 2,000 prisoners out of the jail and free those up. Well, it turns out that the -- that the treatment facilities are a fraction of the cost of building new prisons. So -- so one of the things that the legislature is considering or a number of -- are a number of strategies like that that I think will -- I think some of them will pass this session, maybe a lot of them and I think those will have a significant impact on the county criminal justice budgets over time.
>> okay. We will have an appropriate item on it 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, March 7, 2007 8:00 AM