Travis County Commissioners Court
April 10, 2007
Item 26
That is number 20, 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 2677 relating to financial add voicers retained by political subdivisions for the issuance of bonds, b, house bill one, generally appropriations, c, house bill 2714 relating to a program for the recycling of computer equipment of consumers in this state, providing administrative penalties, d, house bill 37 3758 relating to the recovery and recycling of used electronic devices, creating an offense, e, senate bill 1324, relating to a program for the re recycling of computer equipment of consumers in this state, providing administrative penalties, and f, discussion of other bills and legislative issues as necessary.
>> good morning, judge.
>> if I did, it should be item 23.
>> 26.
>> 26. Yes.
>> thank you.
>> you are welcome, judge.
>> judge, item a was not an item requested by us, so I am hoping someone will be here to talk on the bill. I had a chance to look over it briefly.
>> mr. Pa the tillo is here, I believe. He called this to our attention.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners, I'm ladpotill ladpotillo, your financial adviser. Independent, by the way. There have been several bills introduced in the legislature this session that would adversely affect the ability of local governments to hire an independent financial adviser and control the process by which you issue your debt or do any type of borrowing. I brought this to your attention last week, judge, and sent a memo to all of you explaining what it is. If a Texas local government faces the types of decisions that you have done many times in all the years I have been working with you, of whether or not to do different types of bar owing to do refundings, to do competitive bidding or negotiated sales of bonds and that sort of thing, one common theme of these bills is it would limit you to who you could choose from to help you do that. And it would, the way the bills have been filed, it would limit you, especially this bill, to choose only from firms that have broken dealers and broker dealers are the big firms that you see on television advertising that have stock brokers and other people that sell, trade, underwrite, those kind of securities, which is their primary revenue. Many of them also have financial advisory sections like the one I worked for many years ago before I went independent, and I was still your financial adviser then. So, frankly, I believe this is just a bit of elbowing out there in the competitive market and some of the big guys are disñg the legislature to help them eliminate some of their competition. What it does to you is says if you veb pleased, which I i--if you have been pleased, which I think you have, and we have done well in your financings and are only one of four counties in the state that has triple a rating, that you would in the be able to retain me or anyone like me. The city of Austin's financial advisory is also independent, a very large one with a nigwide--nation nigwide--nationwide presence they would in the be able to retain that person or that firm. So I just think it's interesting that they have taken this tactic. I have been assured by some that I have met that are kind of behind that, oh, this was not intended for the small independents, but what it is, it is intended to limit the competition from the big ones. As a former public official myself, I have a lot of problem with that. I think it's bad public policy. As you know, I served six years on the school board and eight on the Texas veterans land bore. When I'm sitting on your side, I want to be able to choot from all the firms and choose who is competent to help me.
>> in the bill itself, is there any shell language in it ?
>> yes, sir, it is.
>> or is it optional where we can still, the local government can still make that choice.
>> Commissioner Davis, in the bill as introduced, 2677 the language says that the financial adviser holds a license issued by the nation nationally recognized association of securities dealers. There's only one, so that's kind of a ruse. It's the national association of securities dealers, and that is people that trade, sell, underwrite and make markets in securities. I don't do any of that. The second is be subject to the rules of municipal security rule making board, which was set up by the s e c and only applies to brokers and dealers. So those rules only apply to them. And then in good standing with the sec and the state securities board. Last Monday after I visited with the sponsor of these bills and he asked me to help work on a committee substitute, I went over and visited with the state securities board. I am more than happy, more than happy, to be registered by the state securities board. Here to forethey have not had a category but the generally counsel and I spent two hours and we believe there is a category where all financial advisers in Texas could be registered with them subject to their rules and take the state securities law exam. My comment to him was that would benefit my clients. I have been practicing law since 1983. It would not hurt my perform performance for any of you who are my clients to be more refreshed on the law all the time. I would welcome that. But what this is all about is to either drive me out, drive firms like minute of the business or into the arms of the big boys where I would have to american with them. And I think it's just a blatant attempt to limit competition.
>> judge, I move that we vehemently oppose this (inaudible)
>> I vehemently second.
>> okay.
>> enthusiastically second your vee easement opposition.
>> I appreciate that. There are related bill. I would hope to be able to speak if you put this on your legislative target list to speak with the lobbist about that and let them know know. One of the other bills, and I gñlges I i--guess I can speak about there under any other bill f, it actually says you shall select a financial adviser in connection with every sale of public securities. Now, for the sick year i-- i--six year I was on the school board, we didn't have a financial adviser. My colleagues didn't believe we needed one as long as I was on the board. If somebody like myself or mr. Numen, who helps the city, were electd to their Commissioners court, would you, you would be compel still to go out and hire somebody and this other bill, 3612, says it must frñb frñb--must be from that same bill of er er--broker dealers.
>> we can act on those next week. In your backup memo if you try to address the concerns that you have, right.
>> yes, sir.
>> okay. There is a motion for the Commissioners court to oppose the one that specifically is listed, 2677 2677. Anymore discussion ?
>> judge, when there is opposition, is there any way we can state why we are opposing this? To state what the position is ?
>> that's what this letter is for. We are use lad's letter probably in whatever format we have done the other.
>> okay.
>> excellent letter, by the way.
>> thank you.
>> very clearly statedrb-- statedrb--stated, how this is a question of competition in the area.
>> I want public acknowledgment that this letter presented to us will be part of this movement of opposition to this particular bill.
>> thank you very much. There is a hearing on it tomorrow, which I intend to testify.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> the letter or points from the letter.
>> judge, whatever he feels is sufficient testimony to submit as written testimony.
>> consistent with what we have heard today.
>> yes, sir.
>> we like mr. Patillo, but maybe not quite that much. But we would be, since we formally, assuming this vote passes, we would enter a card in opposition along with whatever--
>> along with his testimony written and oral.
>> right. All in favor. That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank you. Anything on b today? House bill 1 ?
>> yes, sir, sherry flemming executive manager for health and human services and veterans services. Our partner, Austin Travis County and hmr, has asked that the court consider a resolution related to both the house bill 1, the appropriations bill, and then also the senate finance portion of that. In short, the house bill 1 contains 35.6 million for crisis services. The senate finance committee has approved 52 million and it is Austin Travis County's position that we should seek as much funding as possible for crisis services. As you well mow, this community has stepped up to the plate just recently in attempt to go enhance the availability of crisis services in our community. And so therefore, additional funding from the state can only enhance what you already are trying to do in terms of filling gaps for behavioral health services. So the request from Austin Travis County and hmr would be for resolution of support that would be shared with the Travis County delegation but also members of what will soon be a joint conference committee to look at funding specifically and to resolve the differences in appropriations from the house and the senate. We have submitted a resolution that I think needs a little bit of tweaking because it's kind of been a moving target since we submitted it for your considerationlve I think--consideration. I think the number we are working right now approved by senate finance is $52. We started at 82, but certainly the larger amount is, you know, the largest amount possible. We do have this.
>> I think we want to state in the letter that the department asked for 82 million.
>> yes.
>> so 52 is much much small zñr certainly.
>> we encourage the senate to improve 52 and encourage the house to follow the senate.
>> it would be we want to encourage them to approve the maximum, there by our resolution would include a number.
>> I think that would be the better strategy, to encourage the maximum and in the put a number in there . So that resolution won't work either but we can get a flu one before you adjourn today if the court decides to approve this resolution.
>> move approval and authorize the tweaking of the resolution there.
>> second.
>> we are asking for the maximum that the state can do. Problem is you ask for a maximum without the null, they figure the maximum is five million, that may be what you get. Maximum is close to 82 million as possible ?
>> yes, 82 million was the original amount. We have 52 in the senate and 36.5 in the house.
>> is this the tweaked ?
>> we even tweaked it just a minute ago.
>> this one is tweaked.
>> it does not include the term, the maximum. So we would want to add that and bring it back. A new tweak to the tweak.
>> a tweak to the tweak.
>> they can send it to my office computer and go up there and make that small change.
>> we can certainly get it to you before you adjourn today.
>> all in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. Communicate that to mhmr for us of that's number two, right? Or b. 26 b. 26 c. Recycling of computer equipment. Seems to be a lot of re recycling of electronic devices bill.
>> perhaps these could be brought up simultaneously.
>> they have all been read. Let's bring them all up.
>> judge, if I mayrb I don't know if Commissioner eckhardt would like to lay these out. I believe they are bills you would like to support.
>> sure. The first two bills, h b 27 2714 and s b 1324 are identical companion bills dealing with computer take takeback requiring that manufacturers who are selling in the state of Texas have a plan for computer takeback. Tc e q would maintain the list. Those manufacturers selling to individual consumers would have to provide a circumstance through which the purchasers of their product could bring the product back after it was no good any longer. The deal is we have a lot of toxins, particularly in computer screens and with our landfill circumstance, it would be un unwise for us to be taking these landfills. It has major environmental impact on our landfills. And it would feed a push inside the industry to create less toxic products, which has been occurring in europe. The other bill offered by representtive nastat, 3758, is very similar but also includes televisions. The real value of including televisions is they of course have just as many toxins in their screens as do computer screens and it would be extremely advantageous in advance of our move away from analog and to high definition television. When we move over to the high definition televisions and you won't be receiving signal on your analog anymore, we are going to have a glut of trashed televisions. We can quickly put into place a means for collecting those tvs in responsible fashion and disposing of them, it would be a huge boon to us. By one count, just the electronics alone costs $600 million in financial burden for the disposition of that kind of waste.
>> (inaudible)
>> there's definitely going to be a pass through. But the belief is that the pass through, the market will force the industry to make inmow investigation so the pass through gets smaller and smaller right now the spat through is still to the consumer in the form of our county government paying for the waste generated. There is no incentive to reduce that waste in the market right now. This would create a market incentive for the reduction of the waste at the front end and the recapture of the waste at the back end so that we are keeping the whole cost of the waste in a box.
>> any comments?
>> thank you.
>> we started a program like this with dell three or four years ago and they are actually taking our computer components back.
>> I want to applaud purchasing for that. This is totally in line with our current policy with the county, as well as I understand our policy for letting contracts for the purchase of these kinds of equipment is that we require whoever we buy from to have a takeback. Is that correct ?
>> that is correct.
>> under these bills, purchases, leases and seals to businesses are not includ included. This is just for individual consumers. But I want to applaud us for stepping out and requiring that already under contract, and applaud dell for doing that. As well as Sam sung.
>> I am going to look t v. I didn't think about that.
>> the other is the wrapping and all the styrofoam that they come packed in. Do they take that back as well ?
>> we use it, recycle that stuff.
>> if you buy a tv from a small operator, somebody--
>> this would in the require the small vendor to do the takeback. It requires the manufacturer to provide the takeback. That makes it distinct from a model that they use in california, for instance.
>> there would be a charge for the takeback ?
>> we were paying I think only $3, maybe $3 a computer computer. And actually, I think we are in negotiations to do away with that because about a year or six months ago, dell announced that they were going to start doing this program voluntarily. So we are in negotiations with that. One thing dell does, they also recycle some of those components within and they actually are using minority firm to perform that. They are using minority firms to do some of that re recycling for us.
>> there's something I may need to look at, not that I'm opposing, just want to be induced to some things that I have seen on television, an example, when you would go in and maybe have new tires for the vehicle and there's a charge that would be assessed on the tire that you replace. In other words, disposal, an amount of money that you have to pay. And these tires were, you know, used tires that you just got rid of and there would be, they have to go somewhere for whatever they were going to use them for. And there were mounds and mounds and mounds of tires that had not been appropriately reinduced into whatever stream that they were supposed to be introduc introduced back into help the recycling phase. It's supposed to be a real, real problem because of that that. So we have here mountains of tires here that have not been recycled. And my concern is, where is that now, operation now? Is it stockpiling and stuff like that ?
>> I think the state, like you said, they were just in inundated with tires.
>> they were everywhere. What happened to that situation ?
>> I think the state was overwhelmed by the program.
>> there are folks that take tires and use them, recycle them. There are places dñrn.
>> I have one hanging , a little horse hanging in my backyard. It used to be a tire.
>> but one thing I want to point out that is disting mm mm--distinct in this bill, the only substantive portion that is run by the state is the list maintained by the t tceq. It's the actual manufacturer taking the items away and either using or disposing appropriately. Which is I think a major component.
>> we have a and second. Commissioner eckhardt.
>> my motion.
>> move to approve cde and e e. Yes.
>> any discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Anything under f, bills that we can discuss and take action on next week ?
>> judge, actually, I don't believe there's mig to take action o I just have some up update for you.
>> bills that we can discuss and take action next week on f ?
>> no.
>> discussion ?
>> discussion, yes. Take act, no.
>> okay. I wanted to let you know that our writ of execution bills are up for hearing tomorrow. Our senate bill has definitely been scheduled of we had hoping that the house bill will be scheduled tomorrow, which will make it convenient for everyone that is coming in from other counties. We have a huge concerted effort from nearby counties, including harris county, to support these two bills. Senate version is being carried by west, house version being carried by str stroma. I want you to know we have lined up our witnesses and testimony for tomorrow. Also tomorrow is our warrant c bill, the one that clear phase the language and statute to correct some ambiguities that we are entitled to collect those fees. That is up for first hearing tomorrow. We are working on that one. Also wanted to let you know that the fireworks bill that you voted to support, h b 36 3648, is up for hearing tomorrow so we will be put putting in a support card on that bill. This is the bill that allows counties to designate certain unincorporated areas as population density zones and gives the county authority to restrict the use of fireworks mthose areas. The last thing I had for you there are two revenue caps bills that are going to be up this afternoon. I believe they fall under the court opposition of all revenue caps bills. I wanted the sign off for you before I drop an opposition cards because these are not specific bill numbers voted in court. I'm not sure if the court's position on revenue caps en entitles drop cards on these.
>> I think we appropriate usely indicated our universal opposition.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> this is revenue cap bill ?
>> two of them, yeah.
>> revenue cap bills, we voted, I forget what the vote was, unanimous for one.
>> I don't know if we actually voted on that. I mean, from the court.
>> not a specific bill because we didn't have one. We voted on revenue caps, though.
>> I believe that we voted on a few specific bills relating to revenue caps and appraisal caps. These two are not on the list. I can verify after we are done if this is something that we can all do.
>> well, if we have not voted on those specific bills, I would be in favor of using our known universal opposition as reason to indicate opposition tomorrow.
>> thank you.
>> we will have them on next week if we need to ratify application of the universal opposition to these specific bills.
>> thank you judge. Other than that, those three packets are for all of you to review if you have the time. Just wanted to clarify that the priority one bills are the bills brought by the county and they do have under each bill listed the act taken and on the date taken in a nice little summary in case you need to relay that information to anyone. The priority two bills have the same format but these are the bills brought by other people asking for the court support or opposition. Our monitor bills, a long- long-running list of bills that we are tracking for movement and any harmful side effects.
>> is there still general support for putting more money into reentry, rehabilitation, restoretive justice type programs ?
>> yes, senator duncan, sb 8 867, the court voted to support that. That bill is rolling along and encompasses a lot of our concerns. Judge hohengarten is also actively working with representative nashtat on our house bill and that one will probably be set for hearing next week. So there is a good forward momentum on this issue.
>> also momentum on our misdemeanor citation effort.
>> it's going very well? I hope. The bill had good hearing. The two house bill, representative maden and pen pena, it was very well received by the committee. There were a couple minor concerns raised by one of the committee members that we are working to address and we do have the sheriff's office involved in that process. We should be able to bring it back to the committee next week.
>> great.
>> the gas by 45 bill smi I i--
>> I would rather let susan comment, but I understand things are going very well.
>> okay. Then we won't tell susan what you said. Anything further regarding item number 26? Thank you very much. See you next week.
>> thank you.
>> things picking up over there at the legislature in.
>> oh, yes.
>> all right.
>> only seven weeks, but who is counting.
>> starting to wear my bulletproof invest real soon soon.
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 11, 2007, 8:34 AM