Travis County Commissioners Court
May 1, 2007
Item 39
On 39, consider and take appropriate action on legislative issues and proposed bills before the 80th Texas legislature. A, senate bill 1164 relating to the compensation of official court reporters for district courts. And I believe we were waiting on some language from judge murr on that. Did y'all get it?
>> yes, morning, Commissioners. I think that tallia just handed you the substitute on that bill. So you all can review the language. It's a short, one-page bill. And at this point based on our discussions with the author's office, we would recommend -- unless you want to otherwise, to not take action at this point. It's a senate bill and a senate that's not out of senate committee, and it doesn't look like it's going anywhere very fast. So if you want to wait a week, that would be appropriate as well, but if you would like to take action this morning --
>> let's wait a week on this?
>> 1164?
>> that's correct.
>> we'll wait a week. B, house bill 15, relating to making supplemental appropriations and reductions in appropriations?
>> yes. I think you have already voted to support an amendment to pay the counties for the may 12th election. And we are it actively working on that. We doanls have the language yet because house bill 15 is still in discussion and still active. So I don't think we need to do anything this week on that item.
>> okay. House bill 1, general proangses bill?
>> this appropriations bill came up last week in regards to discussions about the Texas youth commission and juvenile funding. And there are -- there was a question raised about whether or not there would be funds available for some type of supplemental funds for the '07 year. I think there was testimony that we would be short anywhere from three to four hundred thousand to $1.3 million, Travis County. And we have been in discussions with the speaker's office and on the senate side. There is some money available and we are actively working on that. Groj we need any other direction unless you want to take some action on that.
>> I think we need to ratify support of this bill? I guess the reimbursement for '07?
>> yeah. Well, I believe you did that last week.
>> we did?
>> yes. And I don't think there's any need to endorse the entire bill, just that provision. And we're working on that anyway.
>> I might just interject, Commissioners, that relevant to this issue we have visited with the court on a subject that you've been very interested in in the past, which is programs that the legislature might approve that help divert people from the jail system. And in fact, there has been an amount between 52 and I believe $82 million that is in either the house bill or the senate bill or both that would assist with that. So those funds presumebly, if used in the way that it appears to me that they are intended, will provide substance abuse and mental health services and other types of intervention opportunities that should result in diverting people from the county jail system and the state prison system.
>> okay. And you're following that as it goes?
>> yes.
>> senate bill 1295 relating to the establishment of community-based programs administered by the juvenile boards of certain counties?
>> yes. And that issue as has also raised that bill last week. You voted to support an amendment to apply to Travis County, and that amendment is already in there and the substitute has come out of committee.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic]. They were not individually posted on the agenda last week.
>> so those two, one and 1295, we need to ratify those two actions.
>> 1295 and 3746. On house bill 1, that was pasted last week, didn't have the bill number, but that was enough of a posting that I felt comfortable enough to go ahead.
>> okay. So we do need a motion --
>> so we support house bill 1295 and house bill 4726, both the alternative education program.
>> all in favor? Unanimously accepted. Commissioner Davis offered that.
>> just a correction. On senate bill 1295 it has passed the senate, so we'll continue to monitor that bill to make sure that Travis County stays in the bill in the house. The other bill you just took action on, 3746, that also has a substitute, which we just got ahold of, and --
>> is that what you provided to us, the substitute?
>> you have the substitute for house bill 3746. That has been voted out of committee, and we'll confer with staff, but we believe that the new bracket does include Travis County. A county with a population of less than 1.4 million. We meet that. An contains at least seven school districts. And number two, for the 2005-2006 school year, received funding for school districts under the subchapter e of the education code. I don't know about that. Six this the one that only pertain to bexar county?
>> that's the intent. We just received this this morning.
>> so we've double-checked the brackets.
>> if it doesn't, as it moves forward we'll attempt to amend it to include travis.
>> house bill 8 relating to the christian district courts in certain counties, including Travis County.
>> this is the bill we talked about last week that included the revised language requiring a prioritization of these particular cases. I believe the court was satisfied with the language last week, so I don't believe we need to do anything further on this item.
>>
>> my understanding was that it wasn't so much that we were satisfied with not being included because it was in may, correct?
>> well, actually, it's a trial, but the language giving prioritization and gives the courts the authority. And they had signed off on the language.
>> essentially doing what we were doing because they can prioritize the cases. G is trouble 1886, relating to the pro ciewrmght methods of certain political subdivisions and certain other entities for the construction, rehabilitation alteration or repair of certain projects. As well as house bill 3516 and 3517.
>> these bills were requested by the purchasing department.
>> I mentioned these to judge Biscoe. Several of the cities, counties, school districts and several entities and associations have been workogthis, but the judge did nt me to mention it to the Commissioners court. House bill 1886 was intended to add horizontal type projects, road projects, roads, bridges, wastewater type systems to the design-build method. We're in favor of adding that; however, this bill is very prescriptive --
>> micromanaging?
>> yes.
>> it also has some things in it that we think are really, really bad. One, the main thing that we think is really bad is they want us to start paying stipends to losing proposers. I think it was like five percent of the total project that would bust -- that would bust us. This is not a mandatory, so we don't have to use it if it is passed. They also have language in here about binding arbitration which I have all been counselorred against. There's also a big shift of risk from the a and e group and design-build group to the owner, the taxpayers. We object to that. And it's just -- as eckhardt said, very micromanaging. So I actually managed to get on a committee last summer with a lot of these a and e groups. It was myself and I believe two other owners and we at that time talked to them about the problems with this bill, and they apparently didn't listen to us. And of course, they have a huge lobby, so I would ask that the court would put this on a list to oppose. It has passed the house and we've sent letters, so we don't know what's going to happen. We don't have to use, but it starts creeping in.
>> I move that we oppose -- actually --
>> I wanted to make a comment that since it's passed the house that if -- it's going to be more difficult to oppose it completely, but if there's some specific things that you would like us to work on, we can do that. If there are some amendments that we can try to get on that might be more fruitful at this point in the session, then trying to just oppose it with a letter, that type of thing. If there are some really critical parts of the bill.
>> can you make a list of the things that we would find -- that we disagree with and then present it to them? Then that can be the direction that we take. That would be good.
>> the stipends to losing proposals, the binding arbitration division, the shifting of costs from design-build to taxpayer. Were there other bullets that we should have?
>> indemnification language.
>> is there a second? All in favor? Unanimous. The next one, 3516, says relating to publication of notice for certain transactions involving local government entities.
>> again, this bill is written by a coalition of purchasing professionals from cities, counties, school districts and professional entities. We have tried year after year to get some of the legislation updated with some of our technology. We can now send out notices to people interested through the internet, so what this bill was going to do was to allow us to only advertise once in a newspaper and also allow us to post on the internet or website. Under current legislation we have to this in a newspaper every week that we have it out on the street, so this was a money safer. I don't believe it's going anywhere, but we've been trying to get this passed for years.
>> so do we think that that will give ample notice to everybody so that they'll know what we have, transactions we have that they're interested in?
>> a lot of our associations did surveys of our bidder so see how they are actually finding out about solicitations and less than one percent read the newspaper. Almost all of them are on some sort of e-mail, fax type system now.
>> with their association.
>> through soationz, through the state, through all of us.
>> and then you also use channel 17, don't you?
>> oh, yes, we use channel 17 and we advertise on our website and on the tv channels and newspapers. And then we have the rp depot know nou that we've started using this past year that is giving us a lot more bids.
>> this late in the session, I suggest we sally forth and -- what's that word?
>> support?
>> support. I'm on coffee today and prescription medicine.
>> second and a motion. All in favor? Item i, house bill 3517 relating to competitive purchasing requirements for local governments.
>> this again was put forth by a coalition of purchasing professionals. Harris county now has this authority. Basically if the purchasing agent believes in harris county that a solicitation should be a negotiated request for people he can make that religious to the Commissioners court and get approval. This allows us to use a negotiated procurement method, what we call the r.f.p. Method, when we think it's in our best interest. And again, harris county has had this law for a long time. And we're asking now that all counties be able to. This allows us a better opportunity to give us the best value to consider long-term cost, be other things that you don't necessarily are sometimes overlook in a low bid situation. A lot of times when we get bids in, if there's any sort of exception or any sort of a change in the -- in our documentation, we consider the bid nonresponsive. We cannot negotiate anything. So this is just another tool for us to use when we think it's in the best interest of the county for us to get a better procurement process for what we need.
>> how crucial is it to your work load?
>> I've always believed that if you can do a straight bid, put everything in there that you need and people bid on it, that's the quickest way to go, but on more complicated procurements, this would be a much better tool for us. And I don't think it will affect us in a negative, any negative way. We do support this bill too.
>> is there a motion?
>> so move we support house bill 3517.
>> second.
>> all in favor? Unanimous. J, senate concurrent resolution 42, grant are maria isabel guerrero mcdonald and guerrero-mcdonald and associates inc. Permission to sue Travis County.
>> no action be needs to be be taken by the court. We can update you that the bill was removed from the local consent calendar this past week, so it will go on the general calendar in the senate.
>> so no action today?
>> does that mean it's dead?
>> no, it doesn't mean it's dead.
>> but it's not travelling fast.
>> it's not moving quickly.
>> it slows it down quite a bit.
>> slow down.
>> thank.
>> k, house bill 3870 relating to sale and use taxes in emergency service districts.
>> Commissioner, I believe that there was not a recommendation, but just a report from y'all.
>> we can do that if it please the court.
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> don smith, fire chief. I probably started some of this discussion last week with some e-mails about the bid that was going through that would really benefit esds and Travis County and citizens as a whole. Currently when we look at our esd's, I always call it 13, but we have the other one out there. Six of those 13 cannot get any type of sales tax to assist in providing services. Senate bill 3870 would allow us to come out and get sales tax and some of those esds that currently cannot get it because they have a small city in their district and I use esd 12 as an example, we have a very large district of small city in it that is at tax cap, so the rest of the district cannot get a sales tax. This bill would allow us to go ahead and put a sales tax in place in that bigger part of the district and allow them additional revenue to do services. There was some opposition at first and misunderstanding about how the bill would work, what effects it would have on small cities and their abilities to get sales tax. Those have basically been worked out. That bill is moving forward. It's moved out of the house, it's gone over to the senate side. There is a vehicle to carry it there. It is posted for calendars. I think there's going to be good support for it that will allow us to look at that bill moving forward. The beauty part of that is as we have had discussions in the past about Travis County and the numbers of esd's and the possibility of reducing those numbers to maybe five or six or some smaller number to become much more efficient and us being able to provide services, this will allow us to do that with some of those districts. We've not had that opportunity in the past. So I see this as a very good bill that gives us opportunities to work with and provide some better services.
>> okay. Any questions?
>> chief, this is something that really is confusing to people. I mean, when you try to explain this, I mean, they're like what is -- what are you talking about? Let's break it down into something real simple. For example, oak hill. Oak hill, there was a part out in the oak hill district that wasn't at the eight and a quarter sales tax. Given the fact that there were parts within their district that already had the eight and a quarter sales tax, the law the way it exists now, it doesn't allow you to go out and capture that -- let's say that some area has seven and three-quarter percent sales tax, and there are some areas in Travis County, I suppose, that have somewhere less than eight and a quarter sales tax. And what the esd's want is they want to have the ability to go out and take that sales tax -- probably in most instances to take it up -- because there's probably not anything greater than one percent, although I think that the oak hill area, that there was actually a two -- there was two cents available to go out and capture. I mean, I can't imagine that there are many places in Travis County that are still left with with that, but is it -- the reason that most people or some people would be against it is because they would think, okay, if somebody is already at eight and a quarter, then they are now actually going to be participants thins sare already maxed out for that esd to be taking that additional sales tax. Is that the reason that -- is that the logistics behind what the law was set up to do?
>> you're right on track. A lot of misunderstanding about how that sales tax operates. One of the misconceptions was if the esd goes out and puts in a sales tax of one cent, then all of a sudden we'll be paying one, four, two, five. You can't do that. The state is at the 6.25 so you have that other two cents that you can work with. Under current law an esd can go out and get down as low as a half cent or any increment in half cents up to the two cent if trn available. As you said, there's not many places that you're going to find two. We have a lot of our area because of the city of Austin that's in capital metro, and that take up one cent. So there's a better chance you might find a one-cent tax there somewhere. Again rtion kind of the question came back to, if the esd goes out and imposes a sales tax, then a small city would lose theirs. Not not the case, they -- that's not the case. They don't lose their sales tax. Cities, municipalities right now collect their sales taxes inside the full purpose annexation areas, just like the city of Austin. Those areas outside of that are open to the district for coverage, ad valorem tax and sales tax, so we can actually collect that. If the city annexes and grows, then that esd tax goes away, it reverts to the city side of that sales tax.
>> and you always have to have a vote in order to do this. So this is not something that you can just autonomously say okay, we're the esd, we're just going to go out and say we had a vote with our Commissioners and y'all now have, you know, an eight and a quarter sales tax. Maybe you were at seven and a quarter. So that's something that people need to understand as well. Because I remember that was something that oak hill really got out and educated people about hey, here's the reason we need this, here's the reason you need to be voting to allow us to take that sale tax.
>> it surprised us the number of people already paying 8.25 that were actually not in an 8.25 district. They were outside the city of Austin or outside of municipality, so they were in the 6.25, but when they filled out their paperwork, put in an address, they assumed that they were going to be collecting the 8.25 and did so. That money went to municipalities. It didn't have to be charged, but it was there. So again, misconception of, well, if you add this it's going to go up and it doesn't. It's will 8.25 is the cap.
>> I move to support 3870.
>> all in favor? Thanks.
>> thank y'all.
>> thank y'all very much.
>> I might give you one other little piece of information. Class 7 has now had three new hires from that class.
>> great.
>> so those young people are moving forward, finding jobs.
>> sounds good.
>> I haven't run the numbers exactly, but I think we're probably still in that 98% tile range of them finding jobs. So it's kind of neat to see them do the program and then go out and start finding jobs real fast.
>> do you know any of the guys that want to move to georgia? It's heating up in georgia. They might be looking for some of those guys.
>> our last two went to new york city and the other to the kansas city fire department. They did that through the emmitt side of the fire program that -- the emt side of the program that opened the door for them. So our program being very different has lots of fownts those young people to take advantage of it. We lost them from our community, but they did find career jobs and they're really excited.
>> that's great. Thank you.
>> item l, discussion of other issue and legislative issues?
>> if you haven't had enough yet, we can highlight priority one bills and priority two bills.
>> I'd like to know specifically about a couple of bills. I'd like to know how house bill 2006 is doing, the takings bill that we discussed last week.
>> the eminent domain bill?
>> it's set tomorrow. In the version of the bill that I think was reported to you last week --
>> so it still contain the higher standard of proof for the counties to meet, the clear and convincing evidence standards. It still contains the ex-compliews sieve public use provision.
>> what I would anticipate is that there will be several amendments offered to that bill tomorrow, and that from the perspective of a public entity the bill will probably be less of a good bill after those amendments are put on.
>> wait, that's assuming it's a good bill. It's a bad bill. It will be an even worse bill is what you're telling me after the amendments on the floor?
>> I was trying to be diplomatic. The chairman of the calendar committee's bill. I think that bill is then going to head to the senate. That bill has taken longer to move through the process than many people anticipated. And the general thought around the capitol is that the senate has a different perspective about that issue than perhaps the house does. So it's not clear what the future of that legislation is going to be on the senate side.
>> so it has a friendlier view to the public interest side of it.
>> I think not to speak for any member of the senate, but I think that the general perspective that's been expressed by the senate is that we adopted a significant change to these statutes last session, and perhaps we need to let some of that play itself out and see what problems arise or what changes need to be made over a two to five-year period of time, and we haven't done that yet.
>> so to let the status quo play itself out because we do have a court structure that's been dealing with these issues for decades? Centuries? Rather than monkey with it?
>> well, I think we'll know as soon as this bill gets off the house floor. There's obviously very limited time left, so within the next few days we will be able to make a report to the court about what the senate's intentions appear to be with that legislation.
>> okay.
>> and senate bill 1690 is still languishing in committee?
>> that is correct.
>> the bill for county land use authority and the 130 corridor? Okay.
>> how about the billboard bills? They're just gone?
>> well, senator watson has one that's very specific I think to 71. And that's still moving along. The other billboard bills that are more general and give Commissioners court some say have stalled out pretty well. A general comment about priority one bills. Still all on track the gasb 45 bill, 2365 and then the duncan bill are both postured, I guess -- susan was there. They've been tracking that very closely and I think still optimistic that its on track -- that it's on track. And all the other ones as well. So unless you have specific questions about those --
>> any other questions? Thank you so 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:
Wednesday, May 2, 2007, 8:00 AM