Travis County Commissioners Court
November 20, 2007
Item 34
34. Consider and take appropriate action on legislative issues recommended for review and development in preparation for the 81st legislative session convening in January 2009. This is a follow-up to the work session that we had I guess a couple of weeks ago.
>> yes, sir. I知 only here to answer any questions that the court might have. I believe that you have a document in front of you that reflects the court's discussion two weeks ago.
>> what we indicated was that we would put together a list and then that we would prioritize that list that we would welcome department heads to give us any additional subjects, topics, legislation, that -- that they wanted us to consider for adding to our -- upcoming legislative agenda. And so I guess that's pretty much an open invitation through 2008.
>> yes, sir.
>> the problem, though, is that the later you -- the later you call that to our attention, the less the likelihood that we will be able to give it due consideration and priority attention in advance of the legislature coming to town. So that's why we suggested sort of putting together the list as soon as possible. Number one on my list is really the land use authority. Matter. But I think on that, too, what we ought to do is take another step to look at real problems that have surfaced that we believe lack of authority caused us not to be able to address and as we go through that exercise, we would also evaluate what authority we think we have. And any restrictions on that authority. I am visualizing that section a and b, is that 873 or another, where we think we were given broad authority but then there were much broader limitations in the next subsection.
>> right.
>> so I think that we ought to try to apply that authority to real-life situations try to figure out if that were left in place what we would be able to do, then apply the limitations and the other thing is that we have looked at four or five real-life examples where lack of authority has surfaced and hasn't really all been the same. It's been slightly different. But I think we ought to figure out precisely what we need in each case. In some of this there is broad authority but we have to do real making or ordinance making or policy setting in order to take advantage of that. If that's a short coming we ought to be able to identify that as we go through this process. This proceedings will take a little work I think, probably a little time. I think it may start with us really understanding exactly what authority we have available now. Going through that, we got information from a Commissioner down in hays county, barton, used to be a consultant and he indicated that he and his firm were in a position to assist us if we were to call on them. What they did was to go to -- they put the strategy in place, put the different counties and kind of served as consultants on exactly what the law provided. I think how to best take advantage of it. So I think that -- that when we have looked at the law in the past, thought we have understood the authority, I think we kind of backed away because we concluded we didn't have the authority that we needed there. That may well be the case. I just think we ought to go through that when there's not the pressure of a specific project on us. Go through that again, do our due diligence, then try to figure out exactly what we need to ask for. The other thing is a review of the legislation that we had before the land using authority, trying to figure out whether we would tweak that or use the same language, the sponsors, senator watson was one. Eddie rodriguez.
>> patrick rose.
>> okay. Stuff like that, the protocol says if the language ought to be tweak, we tweak it with them.
>> yes, sir.
>> so there's quite a bit of work just on the land use authority. But I think -- I think the residents that should be our number one.
>> I totally agree with you, judge, kind of looking at something also that until I can get more answers I値l be bringing it back to the court. Especially talking about the same thing you were suggesting there, that it is in the land use authority. I think there's a lot of loose ends that need to be tied up. The persons out there that have been involved with this, not only the legislature, but those folks that are in a position that have also been able to stop the legislation that we have been trying to get passed. What are their concerns, how can we get these kind of bills passed. I知 looking at some ways to also, which I will be bringing to the court pretty recently, very recent hopefully, before the end of the year. That we can look at. We are all in the same mindset apparently, but the subject matter, common subject matter as far as priorities is concerned is land use authority. I think we all are on the same page on that I really do.
>> okay. If that's number one for us, what's number two? I have near the top of my list transportation/funding. I think we ought to try to get all counties to at least focus on trying to persuade the state to eliminate or greatly reduce the diversion from the mobility fund and I think part of that should be us getting out an encouragement that the programs that those moneys use to fund are good programs but they should be another source of funding. I知 thinking that if the legislature knows that in advance, there is a surplus as there has been during the recent session, seems to me that would be the appropriate time to make the trans fir. But we're talking about a substantial amount of money that keeps growing, so far every time we have asked them to reduce the amount diverted we have not only not granted that wish, they have increased it.
>> that's correct.
>> if that happens my strategy would be for the 2010 to not even mention it. I think we ought to make one more run at it. I can't believe that the legislative delegations for the other areas don't say the same thing to them that ours says to us.
>> it's a very broadly and widely held position by business community and local governments. It's hard to understand why what's been happening continues to happen.
>> well yes and no. I mean, there are some of those diversions, chris, that really are sort of like, I mean, somebody obviously had some in whenever you can get economic development dollars, you know, for the city of lufkin. But it's not hard to understand why some of it goes to education, because there are not a lot of people that want to tee it up with you on education, people would like to say find money for education somewhere else. That's fine, kind of like pulling it out of your left pocket or right pocket, you know, start talking about the d.p.s. Okay fine, somebody tees it up with you there, can argue you right into the ground with that. I think some of those diversions all of us would go preservation of historical county courthouses, I mean, that, you know -- when you see the list there are some obvious ones but, you know, the big dollar ones, I mean, education and d.p.s. Are ones that you've got to be able to take to the legislators and go okay, here's how you fund those things so don't take them out of here. I mean it is amazing how many people will say we are supportive of you stopping the diverses, but, you know, unless you can go in with -- with a plausible revenue, you know, for the replacement of that, isn't that where it falls apart?
>> yes, sir the reason for my somewhat cynical attitude about it is that the legislature left $7 billion unspent during this last budget and increased the amount of diversions out of that fund which suggests that whatever it is that we are saying collectively, along with everybody else, is definitely not being heard.
>> getting through.
>> why wouldn't we try to persuade the leadership to ask the comptroller to find the amount that the diversion represents? Not when the legislature is here about a year in advance?
>> uh-huh.
>> okay they could turn you down, but seems to me easier now to go and ask in preparation of next session, why don't we get the comptroller to start looking around for it, it's probably half a billion dollars superintendent it?
>> more than that.
>> more than half a billion dollar. In the grand scream of things a half million is a small amount of money. They have been dealing with multi-billion dollar surpluses. I think -- I thought for a while we weren't being clear that our position is these are good causes that you're funding, it's the source of funding that we question.
>> right.
>> so we are not saying take the funding away, we're saying take this source away, substitute another source for it.
>> appropriate source because of course gas tax is a user fee. For one's use of the road. It's a pretty good proxy for how much one uses the road. What does that have to do with many of the things it's funding. It's not that we shouldn't fund these other things, it's a user fee for the transportation system is an appropriate source of that funding.
>> I think you're going to have a much different opinion going into 2009 with what's happening with rescissions and we are absolutely out of
>> [indiscernible] how to fund mobility and transportation.
>> I agree. The crisis point that we have reached is going to cause a renewed focus on this issue.
>> mccracken: the federal rescissions have hit us to the tune of what?
>> out of the state --
>> 666.
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> [multiple voices]
>> couldn't they have made that 667 instead of 666.
>> I mean but it's 660 plus million and in the next 12 to 18 months we have been told to expect another 800 million.
>> central Texas.
>> yes, sir.
>> and north Texas and harris county area.
>> it is a grim picture.
>> yeah.
>> which is unquestionably going to be one of the primary topics of discussion when the legislature convenes in 2009. It will be the number one issue or certainly in the top two that the legislature considers.
>> let's try to reason with them first.
>> yes, sir.
>> where's juvenile justice on our list y'all? Is that 3?
>> yes.
>> would be my 3.
>> because it's a big question mark looks like the state is working frantically trying to address that but we're being impacted in a great way financially and also in terms of -- of counseling and treatment available for juveniles. So -- so everything I致e heard has indicated that they have a long way to go on fixing that. Anybody heard anything different?
>> no.
>> any others, you want my to keep talking?
>> I would put in a bid as the number four being mental health funding. The distribution formulas for mental health funding.
>> the number one on t.n.r.'s was the utility relocation
>> [indiscernible]
>> joe, which one is more important, utility relocation or storm water fees.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> joe, are you familiar with our legislature?
>> [laughter]
>> storm water is going to be --
>> [indiscernible]
>> those are separate, right?
>> storm water, then utility rerelocation, is that okay?
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> what about -- dan, I知 not sure I understood your early retiree relief legislation. We are asking the state of Texas to help create a pool of funding available to help retirees between age 60 and 65 before -- before medicaid kicks in.
>> yes, sir. That's -- that's the premise. The -- the local government code chapter 175 has language that says an entity with early retirees has to offer the same level of benefits as they offer active. Not a requirement to pay for it, but you have to offer that same level. We are looking for language that says it can be comparable or giving as an opportunity to explore going with a pool or with a program that offers a comparable level of benefits that is more affordable.
>> so -- so our goal is simply more flexibility to come one a comparable plan and not the same one that we offer in -- in early retirees?
>> that's right. And the possibility of -- of pooling retirees in that category across the state and possible state pool where you spread your risks among a number of -- a greater number of retirees.
>> we think other counties may be interested.
>> we would like to work through the cuc and the association of counties to explore that.
>> we ought to explore that before they get to town, right?
>> uh-huh.
>> if it looks like they are standing in --
>> [indiscernible] gasb 45 issue.
>> I don't believe so.
>> okay. Okay.
>> doesn't take any more than about -- tell me what do you all want three to five that you really could, if you are really going to try to sink your teeth in on these things.
>> yes, sir. I think that's reasonable. I might just mention, I don't know if you want to incorporate these into this list or if you kind of want to have a separate list, but I -- I think that the -- the court's feedback, there are a couple of defensive issues that -- that rise to -- to being on the priority list. The first at the top of that would probably be the revenue cap, appraisal cap issue. I -- I致e heard both the governor and the lieutenant governor speak about that issue within the past month as -- as a priority. The recent round of school bond elections and school elections around the state cause there to be a lot of discussion about that. And one of the great frustrations of the counties has been that while a lot of the property tax increases have actually had nothing to do with the counties, have had to do with the school district or others, the county kind of bears the brunt of much of the legislation that has been proposed. So I think that issue is unfortunately not going to go away and -- and I think just by its very nature it probably has to remain pretty close to the top of your list.
>> well, especially given that -- that they are finding that -- that legislation that was passed to really lower the -- the school taxes by a third over two years has just been eaten up, you know, with the appraisals. I mean, you know, people, I mean, they are just they are not witnessing a third less tax, taxes outs of their school taxes, I mean, because there have been -- they are just being consumed with increased appraisals. I mean I think that that plays in the hands of, you know, what the governor and the lieutenant governor are talking about because if you are talking about not having savings there, which they feel like that they have really taken, you know, a giant step, I mean,, you know, to go after that, they really are going to be after, you know, revenue caps for counties and cities, I mean, I would think. Wouldn't you think, chris?
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> and that's the reason it's so hard -- and hill was our biggest defender, wasn't he? And hill is not coming back.
>> yes, sir, he's decided not to seek re-election. It's going to be -- -- I fear it's going to be a bigger issue next session than it turned out to be this past session from the county's perspective.
>> so we see you and the others putting together a fact sheet?
>> yes, sir. I think it's going to be a focus of many county entities throughout the remaining part of the interim.
>> for those listening, it's either for us to do without -- or to make do with less money, it's just that once we have funded the mandated program and services, there's not a whole lot of discretionary funding left. And for us it's goes down to programs and services. And the legislature if they wanted to help us would say precisely what programs and services they would cut with the money they save. Which in my view would be fair. What we will do in addition to these is try to get with county managers because we do have some other items that I think probably are not as important as these. But maybe work, put together a little strategy and stuff like that, put that list together, a little strategy and at appropriate time early next year turn our attention to them maybe in a work session. My guess is we would probably come up with 10 or 12 or so what I consider to be little more minor than the one we talked about today. Any others that we want to be sure to have on our radar even if our legislative consultants aren't working on them? I ended up with seven in priority order. Plus the two that you mention, revenue caps, appraisal caps, I guess which would be one. In the past we have pretty much put up the same fight for the different pieces of legislation covering those, right?
>> yes, sir.
>> anything else? Move approval of this list as the legislative priorities for next year. Discussion?
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you very much. You may want to apologize to christian since you took his place. Christian, we are ready for your item. Thank you for your patience.
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, November 21, 2007, 18:30 AM