Travis County Commissioners Court
April 3, 2007
Item 31
Number 31, which is to consider and take appropriate action on certain legislative issues and proposed bills before the 80th Texas legislature, including the following: a, house bill 3447 relating to the authority of certain counties to regulate land development. B, house bill 1, general appropriations. C, house bill 2365, relating to financial accounting and reporting for this state and political subdivisions of this state and other legislative issues relating to tax and revenue caps. D, senate bill 1107 relating to the powers of certain hospital districts and to the retirement benefits of employees of the districts and related entities authorizing the issuance of anticipation notes and the imposition of taxes. And 31-e is discussion of other bills and legislative issues as necessary. Morning.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners. We have two brief reports to make. We can do them at the there's --
>> we have two brief reports to make. We can make them now or make them at the end of the time period. I know we have people from the hospital district and staff folks, so it's up to you, whatever your pleasure.
>> let's hear the reports. Does one of them involve the need for one of us to go over this afternoon?
>> yes. That's just the request.
>> can we deal with that? What bill is that?
>> it's the misdemeanor citation bill, the bill that was brought to you by the sheriff's department.
>> 2391 and 3059.
>> we have jim sylvester has agreed to appear as a witness on behalf of the sheriff's department, but I think the author of the bill had requested a Commissioner or judge.
>> has any member of the court been working --
>> on the misdemeanor citation.
>> I've been working some on the citation along with several other bills and how they interface.
>> would you like to go over this afternoon?
>> I will be be happy to.
>> I would assume when the house resources-- it's the house?
>> that's correct.
>> we will have 20 to 30 minute advance notice of when they will be in committee at least?
>> yes.
>> so somebody will lep let us know. I guess call Commissioner Eckhardt's staff and that you will be able to give a little bit of advanced notice and an opportunity to go over there. Any problem with that? I guess we'll need the rest of us here working on county business, but that's pretty important, so if we can help out, that would be fine. And speaking of hospital district, we do have chair of the board and also the ceo and I forget all the lofty titles his young has. They're here. What's the number of that bill?
>> 1107.
>> which has at got ena little media coverage of late. I tried to review records last time that was here before the court. We had a draft bill, but the bill had not been filed.
>> that's correct.
>> and we did ask questions. Ms. Young did give us information and so the court did take an affirmative vote in favor. Now, we did not say precisely what it was we were approving, which kind of left the impression that we're approving the bill. In the other cases, though, where we approve a draft, we were approving the filing of a bill at an appropriate time and sort of bringing it back to sus the way I understand the way the process worked. But the bill is filed. It was before some committee last week or the week before. I was contacted and asked about the rollback rate. That's why clark is here for us.
>> any other questions or issues.
>> on 1107.
>> I had a couple of questions, judge. Let me put the phone down.
>> president bush will understand you're getting back to him a little later.
>> [ laughter ]
>> I hope he does.
>> my concern is this, and I think I echoed some of it to some of the consultants yesterday, and to try to look for at the dispro money, especially when we have persons coming out of the area using the resources of the district not residing within Travis County. My question, though, is if -- let me understand this direct correctly. If there's a sales tax that will make up the shortfall of the dispro money that will be lost, the dispro money that will be lost, not given out in the future, would that sales tax revenue be used outside of Travis County service area? In other words, a person coming from another county wanting to use the hospital district service, would the Travis County residents that would generate the sales tax have to still accommodate residents out of Travis County? That's my first question. Does that make any sense.
>> that is for a repeal of the district's imposing a sales tax. The sales tax prohibition does not entitle them to impose a sales tax. The district would only impose a sales tax if one were permitted -- if the caps were such and it were permitted locally by vote. So I just want to clarify that the bill does not give us the ability to impose a sales tax per se, it just repeels our prohibition on utilizing a sales tax in the future. If I could give you a little bit of background with about why that repeal is requested.
>> please enlighten me. I'm thinking something else and it's really not that.
>> okay.
>> anyway, go ahead. But it's associated with dispro money, that's why I brought that forward.
>> I think I can clarify that for you. The reason why we're requesting that the prohibition on the district's ability to implement a sales tax has to do with discussions that have been taking place over years and months about what Texas will do about property taxes, there has been some discussion that there may be permitted in the future the ability to buy-down a property tax with the imposition of a sales tax. If we are prohibited from applying the sales tax we would not be able to avail ourselves of that ability, so that's what we're intending to get at with this. No other district that we're aware nf the state of Texas has a prohibition against the use of a sales tax. There aren't many that use one, but they still have the authority to do it should the circumstance of state and local caps permit an imposition of a sales tax. The district has no intention of applying or creating a sales tax, this is merely to remove a potential barrier to a future tool. Now, to your question -- I think there were two questions within that. If the district -- in some future circumstance if the district torp raise either a property tax or sales tax, right now constitutionally we cannot use those funds for services other than Travis County residents. So I think that to your question, revenue that was raised by the district would be raised through Travis County. I want to clarify that in terms of the district fun right now, they are also used for the benefit of Travis County residents. The way our lease works with seton is we pay seton for the direct provision of services and those services are only for Travis County residents. Now, however, we do make a six sum charity care payment to that hospital that helps them cover the cost of uninsured individuals. That does not distinguish between Travis County or an out of county resident. So to your point there probably is a small portion of funds that the district applies to brackenridge that one could argue might be used for out of county residents, but the fact of the matter is they're charity care burden is much greater than the amount we pay them, probably at least 10 times what we pay them. So I think it's safe to say that the money that we're paying for is contributing towards Travis County residents and under charity care. I think your other question about disproportionate and medicaid upper payment limit dollars has to do with our concerns about discussions that are happening at the state and federal level about changes to the dish and upl programs which could potentially result in a reduction of a significant amount of revenue to the district. We currently have about 25% of our budget comes from dish and upl dollars. We are concerned that should those dollars go away in the future, our current situation we would be highly constrained to make up that revenue should those dollars go away. And our previous discussion with you really has to do with our ability to potentially go to the voters for an affirmative election should we find ourselves in a situation where our revenue circumstances change dramatically and we were facing cuts in services. Does that help clarify?
>> it does. It does. And I guess I was getting apples and oranges mixed up today. But that stands to reason. It's been a tough morning already.
>> not even noon yet.
>> so the intention is not necessarily to prepare to exceed roll back, it is to have that option available in the event that other cuts occur which require that you do something extraordinary to generate revenue. So this would be an option.
>> that's absolutely right.
>> our concerns about federal and state issues, some of them you're looking at this morning, but it's very volatile at the moment in terms of how much is going to come, what it will be, and that's what we're worrying about. And if we got caught in that shortfall, our plan would be to come visit with you about what's best. But this gives all of us the optionalty to say let's take it to the voters if that circumstance developed and do it in the affirmative rather than doing it in a defensive roll back context, which no one would want to be in.
>> that definitely cleared it up. Thank you for that quick overview.
>> we did approve the draft you, and I looked at the draft and the bill and the changes made were very, very minimum. So I move that we basically show our support of the bill.
>> second.
>> discussion?
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank y'all for coming out. Appreciate that.
>> that covers two of them. Can we go back to a. A we brought up last time. That's the hill country land use bill, right? I guess my view wol if would beif we're asking for it n other parts of the county, why not ask for it in that part. The other thing is refinement work needs to take place probably on this bill and the others in order for them to have any chance of getting enacted into law, right? So I would move approval of a.
>> second.
>> discussion? We know there are some issues there, Commissioner. All in favor? Show Commissioners Gomez, Davis, Eckhardt and yours truly voting in favor. Voting against, Commissioner Daugherty. Didn't mean to preempt y'all, but --
>> [ laughter ] now, on b, we were asked by cuc to take action -- I do recall that e-mail, but I can't recall it now.
>> the cuc is asking us to sign on to a letter of concern regarding a prevention in h b-1 of a recurring transfer of $58.5 million to the state. As the letter states it, for reasons not understood, what intended to be a one time non-recurring payment has been repeated in each year for the proposed budget for the upcoming biennium for 117 million. It's using local tax dollars to permanently subsidize the hhsc. So this is a flow of county property tax money up to the state for what appears to be a permanent subsidy for hhsc. So the council of urban counties is concerned about this. The counties were fine about the 58.5 million one time, but this appears to have been transformed into a continuing recurring transfer. So the central -- the coalition for urban counties is asking us to sign on in opposition for that particular provision in h b-1.
>> and we think that's the thing to do?
>> yes.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. And in this case we do have a letter to sign. And do I have the original?
>> I have plenty -- plenty that will serve as the original.
>> thank john white for his fine work on the memo that you delivered to us. Okay.
>> would you all like one, two -- all the people went back to the council of urban counties.
>> we'll do two. What else do we need to discuss on this item? Is there an update on gasb 45? You look mighty cfbl, so that -- cferblg, so that means the bill is doing all right?
>> appears to be be. It had a hearing in the senate and the house and some amendments are being considered in the bill and that's what they're talk about now. That's where that is. If you want me to -- judge, be you wanted to talk revenue caps, so when that comes up I'll be glad --
>> since we have you there, let's talk about it right now. That's c.
>> I attended a meeting at tac this morning. We have a Tuesday meeting through the session. And the general consensus there from people who are speaking and the group is that it is a serious threat that we need to look at and there will be a push to get it -- to try again to get a revenue cap through and that we need to get ready. They don't think appraisal caps are going to go through fks. The revenue cap bills that are out there, one is basically bring it down to five percent. So come down three percent. Another one on the senate side, which we had seen before, does not allow the counties to get any money in the calculation of the roll back rate on new property. And that's an interesting one because I think you would have to say the theory of getting the new money for new property is that you are providing services to the new property. When you take that out, it is such an incredibly economic disincentive because what you are saying is that the -- that the services that are required by new growth will not be paid by the new growth, but will be paid by the other property tax holders. And as we know, it's kind of always some gain you boost item. So that is an interesting one and that's the one that senator williams has sponsored and did in another session. So I think that we need to educate our delegation once again on revenue caps and tell them what we think and how it will impact our services. Again, you noarks the differences -- you know, the differences between cities and counties are extremely important because of our almost exclusive dependence on property taxes. So if there is a cap for government, the counties will be the most severely impacted because don't have alternative sources of revenue to make that up. And the services that are mandated by the state we will still have to do.
>> where is this at right now?
>> they can tell you more.
>> there are several bills that have been filed, Commissioner, but none have been heard and none are moving forward through the process at this point. So we -- excuse me?
>> so they've just been filed?
>> yes, sir. I would say that we are at a point in the session where we should be hardened by -- heartened by the fact that none of these bill have moved forward. Some people believe that if the leadership or others were committed to passing these bills this session, we might have seen some movement by this point in time. So it's a good sign so far.
>> we should still keep wearing our bulletproof vests.
>> yes, sir.
>> no question.
>> the hawkins blue ribbon committee sort of recommended various things, but also a half cent sales tax for county.
>> yes, sir.
>> and the revenue cap bill, is that discuss when had they discuss --
>> no, sir, it is not a part of these proposals that susan is describing to you.
>> the other thing in that proposal -- some analysis was done because it seem you get so much more money from a sales tax and a lot of people like that. And in the testimony, councilmember dunkerley testified and I thought brought up a really good point, and that is that if in fact that is a local option and you boost your sales tax significantly either in the county or city or whatever, that's not necessarily a 100% gain because if the county next door to you does not have that, then people go and buy their things there. Also, I think anyone that's familiar with shopping on the internet where you pay no sales tax whatsoever, if the higher sales tax were to come, it's a greater incentive to take action so you don't have to pay sales tax. So I have not done any analysis on that, but I will say that needs to be analyzed very seriously before we would think -- before we would know that as a better and viable option. The more diversification is attractive, but it's not without need for analysis, I guess.
>> and for the -- for our lobby team to weigh in on this, it seems like that the state would be somewhat preans sieve about -- apprehensive about allowing local additional sales tax because that is a major source of revenue for the state. And if they would allow you to do that on a local basis, then they've really got to look down the road at what they're going to do with their revenues. In our case we'd probably go, heck, we don't want you to handcuff yourself because we know what happens when that happens. Then you do shove it back to us. We start getting thing that we don't want coming our way. Is that --
>> it's not likely to move forward during this session. There just has been no movement at all to that rengs. It received a lot of attention when it was made because it was a significant statement out there, but there's no indication from any corner right now that that legislation is going to consider allowing the counties to have a sales tax or reduction of property taxes.
>> sales tax --
>> I'm not recommending it, be it's just that I remember that.
>> it was part of it.
>> if you were to cut on one hand and that money was important --
>> it just was one of those proposals that did not receive immediate support or interest, so it's fallen to the side at this point.
>> anything else?
>> can you give us any update on the billboard stuff? What's the latest?
>> there are several bills that are moving. One of them we've been talking about, senator nelson's bill, and that's actually eligible for the local calendar right now. That's the current status. There's been discussion it may get bumped and have to go to the full floor, but that's the main one in the senate. The house -- there's one bill for senator watson that is moving forward. I think it's been voted out of committee and that's another one that is looking pretty good. I think we need to see where those bills go.
>> they're moving in the senate, not in the house basically.
>> are you here on particular bills? Or just enjoying the Commissioners court proceedings?
>> [ laughter ] so from the priority one bill's list, do we need to go over that?
>> I can touch on that and on the priority two as well.
>> and highlight where we need to go.
>> the two local bills regarding the courts are moving forward. At least one of them has passed one house. I would want to tell you about the hearing last weekend on the county court at law number 8 in the senate. And what had transpired there so you're aware of that. As you know, senator duncan has a bill to -- senate bill 1204 that would take all the county courts to $100,000. And so he is asking that any new county courts that are adopted by the legislature that they have that 100,000-dollar cap. So he requested that senator wentworth put an amendment on that bill to limit that court to the $100,000. Senator went worth was inclined to accept the amendment, but in committee -- senator watson is also on that committee. Senator watson didn't think it was such a good idea and he was joined by senator hin o'is a who was also wanting to limit them to $100,000, where the rest of the county courts are 200,000. So it was a local bill, but there was a debate back and be forts. And finally it voted out of committee last weekend. But as a result of that it was not ready for the local calendar. So it will go to the full senate. And so that issue is out there. We expect it to be resolved among the member and the bills that passed. We did want to make you aware that that did occur.
>> does the first name of the person who voted against it start with an n as in no?
>> is that who voted against it? No. Senator hinojosa?
>> who voted against it.
>> senator hinojosa because he was opposed to putting that restriction on the county courts.
>> starts with an h. Anything else?
>> well, we have -- of your priority bills there's three bills that have not been set for hearing and our goal is is to have them set by next week. One is the constable bill, the writ of citation, and representative strama has indicated that he'll get that set next week. We have --
>> do we have the other counties still working with us on that?
>> we do, yes.
>> it's a big deal. It's already cost us three or four hundred thousand dlarp. Dollars.
>> we're pushing hard on that. The warrant bill, senator watson had, we're going to try to get that set next week. And finally, naishtat has the bill that judge hohengarten bill, be and we're going to try to get that set next week. That one is on local over there.
>> we will have that bill.
>> so that -- and of course we already talked about the misdemeanor citation. That's set today. And we have our witnesses lined up. So that's the priority group. There's a few bills on the priority two list if you would like that we could highlight. And the first one would be on the very first page, house bill 345. And that's the collateralization of public funds. That did get voted out of committee on Monday as substituted, and the substitute is still objected to by the staff members here, so we'll continue to watch that.
>> so did the substitute -- does the substitute incorporate some of the changes that we recommend?
>> no. One of them. It put the interest back in there for your investments.
>> you may not have your money, but you will get paid interest on it.
>> do the other counties have that on their radar?
>> yes.
>> on page 6 of the report, house bill 3229 by don no donna howard, that is being heard today. That was a bill that you've endorsed to support. And so that's get agriculture hearing. On the next page, house bill 3519 by strama --
>> which painful is this?
>> this is page #- 7, I'm sorry. It's right in the middle there, house bill 3519. And this is the meet and confer bill. And that is set for tomorrow. And we will put a card of support into that bill. The next one below that, senate bill 3534, this is the bill that chris and susan talked about. This is the main revenue cap bill, and it's not set for hearing. It's just sitting there at this point.
>> bob, when you put a card in support into the committee on bills that we have taken a formal position on, like representative strama's bill, would that be a card for the Travis County Commissioners court?
>> yes, yes.
>> okay.
>> we have to put our names on there, but we do it on behalf -- they have a place to do it on behalf of the group we're representing. Travis County Commissioners court is what we put in. On page 8, this was his resolution against opposing state mandates being pushed down to the county. And it's been sitting there, but they're going to try to get that out of committee either this week or next week. But there is support for that in the county affairs committee. And I believe that was the last one we wanted to highlight. We're happy to answer any other questions of any of these bills that are out there.
>> legally what effect does a house joint resolution have? Hjr 61, is that the same as say if it passes law?
>> it's a constitutional amendment, judge, that is the designation in hjr or sjr are reserved for those items that go on the ballot for voters statewide to amend the Texas constitution.
>> okay.
>> the okay doesn't have to sign those. -- the governor doesn't have to sign those.
>> but voters to have approve them.
>> yes, sir, 100 votes in the house and of course 21 in the senate. Two-thirds vote required in order to pass them and place them on the ballot.
>> majority vote by the electorate statewide.
>> yevments. Yes, sir.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> [ laughter ]
>> that's pretty important. I think voters would do that. I think enough voters now know what we mean when we say unfunded mandate enough to care.
>> I'm sure that would pass, judge, if it were placed on the ballot statewide.
>> do we think it may pass both houses by two-thirds majority?
>> I don't know. It has been filed every session in some form for many years and not passed. But it seemed to have momentum this session that it had not seen in previous years.
>> there was a big sign the other day saying new day at the capitol. Maybe they had this joint resolution in mind.
>> [ laughter ] okay.
>> that's all we have.
>> y'all still having fun while you transact business over there for Travis County?
>> it's another party everyday, judge. We love what we do.
>> [ laughter ]
>> I tell you what, judge, they are really on the ball. We was over there to testify in support of the senate bill 1690 and lo and behold, they're everywhere. Accommodating and everything else. They make you feel like you're right at home when you're sitting over there in the state capitol chambers.
>> thank you for being there.
>> y'all are everywhere, man. That's good, though.
>> anything else regarding item number 31? Is there legislation that we ought to have specific oi on next week? Let us know. And thank you very much.
>> thank you.
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:
Tuesday, April 3, 2007, 9:34 PM