Travis County Commissioners Court
April 15, 2008
Item 27
27 is to consider and take appropriate action on whether to testify, submit comments or otherwise participate in upcoming hearings before the senate committee on transportation and homeland security. We got just a notice that there's a hearing before the senate committee and I guess my question is whether we want to play an active role in this or not.
>> good question. I mean the court had discussed the -- the local option of gas tax as one of its possible legislative initiatives and that is on the list of items to be discussed. It's mainly just finding out what if anything the court wants to go to the is that the to testify about how we should go about coordinating that and then ultimately who should make the presentation to the committee. It's just around the corner. The next one is April 23rd.
>> yes. I will -- I will be out of the office that day, so I am -- I am not available to testify myself, but I can certainly have -- a member of my staff there or -- or probably more appropriate a member of the court.
>> do we have any idea of what the other urban counties might be interested in telling the committee?
>> I don't. I don't. I don't have that information.
>> you say you don't?
>> I do not.
>> I would major that the metroplex area will be here big time because -- they have for the last two sessions tried to get a -- a local sales tax increase, I mean a number of of the cities in the metroplex area because of -- they say that they need that for the expansion of the dart rail system. That's not gone anywhere in the last two sessions but I would bet you that they are going to be down here talking about that in particular.
>> we had a travis, hays, Williamson county bill two sessions ago. That died a quiet death in one of those committees over there.
>> will likely be filed again this legislative session.
>> we may as well go --
>> you also -- the Texas -- trans Texas corridor is on there. That obviously will draw a bunch of people -- not necessarily local governments.
>> crowded meeting.
>> we were hoping to hide from that one, joe.
>> yes, I know.
>> it does seem to me that we ought to take advantage of this opportunity. Why don't we get staff to -- I would at least touch base with cuc. Maybe tac with their leadership, try to find out what they have in mind. Pull our legislation, maybe touch base with the partners to see if it still makes sense and if we think we're going back with it then we may as well go ahead and reintroduce it to this committee. They're talking about funding options, I take it. Looks like there's a frairl broad transportation finance hearing. We could go --
>> my motion is to direct that we try to put together a draft statement for court review next Tuesday. We'll have one more meeting before the 23rd meeting. That we go ahead and indicate to the committee leadership our interest in giving comments and being part of the record. Next Tuesday try to figure out exactly what it is that we would say.
>> second.
>> judge.
>> yes, sir.
>> I think all of us are -- are really trying to identify what we need to be doing. Probably not just this particular area of central Texas, but definitely the state of Texas with regards to funding for -- for added capacity roadway needs, safety issues like we've -- like we've been dealing with out on 71, and a number of other options for, you know, just basic transportation in general. The -- the thing that I think that -- there are two things that are really missing in all of this. I don't know that anyone has ever done a comprehensive study that number one I think that most people when you start talking about fun six revenue, that being the state tax that goes into fund six, I have never seen a study done that was -- that would show if we were to stop the diversions. I mean the two big diversions that I think that come out of fund 6, I know judge you and I have touched on this a little bit, is number one 25% that apparently is -- is statutory that goes to public education. I don't know that people in this stated in what that would do. Would -- if you did that, would you effectively take and raise people a's ad valorem taxes because public education of funding public education is something that -- that the state is -- you know, really struggling with in general. So I mean I would like to know what that would really mean because money has to come from somewhere. The other thing that is diverted out of there is the cost for operating the d.p.s. I知 sure the state would probably tell you fine if you take the diversion out of fund 6 and you don't fund the d.p.s. There, well, you are going to fund it somewhere. If you start funding it out of something else, where does it come out of. Now, some people say well we've got a huge rainy day fund amount of dollars there. But -- but those are generally I mean, you know, kind of one time kind of moneys at least some people think they are, the overall need that -- that we need for this is a real -- real good study and then an education -- to let people in this state know exactly exactly where we are, what would be created and the causes of -- of what this might affect. -- maybe we would all be supportive of that. For example, you said it judge, who wants to get close to the trans Texas corridor. I don't know if the trans Texas corridor is a good idea or not quite frankly. I know that there are a lot of people that when you bring up trans Texas corridor, they want to bring their pitch forks and they want to, you know, skewer you if you are an elected official. I知 not sure that people in this stated in the design behind it. I know in the 50s in everything that I read the interstate highway system is a very, very controversial system. It cut through private property, it cut through ranches, it cut through all of the things from the trans Texas corridor has got to deal with today in the state of Texas. I think the basic problem here is that there are a lot of people that really don't understand what -- what I mean if there is sound and good reason for taking a look at the trans Texas corridor. That there's ever been any sort of a movement afoot to really educate people as to why we're doing these things. That being said, I知 not saying we shouldn't go and testify for -- how can you argue with the option of having a local gasoline tax if you have a local gasoline tax and it passes I would suspect most people think if you are going to do that you are going to do away with the toll plan. I bet you there are opinions and ideas as to whether or not if the local gasoline tax got passed is that something that you could still do. I quite frankly I致e never heard anybody ask the rma whether that would be the case. But I know that --
>> you could certainly argue for elimination of the roads that the -- that the new tax revenue would -- would enable you to construct.
>> I agree.
>> it wouldn't be all of them, but I think as far as public education would be to tell the truth about that.
>> I agree.
>> but if we've got five or six roads, it may be you can generate alternative funding to pay for one of them. But everybody against those toll roads is saying look for additional ways to generate revenue. These are e-mails that come from around the state. Looks like I知 copied with all of the governors e-mails. Try this approach and that approach, really an additional gasoline tax is mentioned almost every time. I never thought it was that good, I think really -- I think a toll road would just impact a toll road on it. Gasoline tax if you buy gasoline in a certain area, you would pay it. But -- I mean it's an option. The other thing is that on this fund 6, I mean if you take -- if you take money from -- from public education, d.p.s., it would mean that the legislature would have to replace it. There have been opportunities when there have been surpluses, I don't know that we could project one for the next session, but there are ways to creatively restore any money that you take from? Of those programs that are funded with diverted fund $6. I would just throw it out there. There's plenty of work to be done. Normally they move on one to two ideas. If they live in Texas, they have heard residents complain about toll roads and say I知 ready to pay additional, you know, gasoline tax, whether they really mean that -- that or not, you only test by going to the electorate. But the beauty of that is that you would go to your residents and they would vote on it. You can argue about the low voter turnout. But those interested in it would get geared up, I hope. And go and express their opinion. I agree with you, we don't have a whole lot of options but there is this opportunity to go over and have our say.
>> well the point that I was making, judge, is I think that people react to things thinking that something is a -- is a very good idea. But sometimes they are not equipped with all of the information that they need, if you do this, this causes this. That's the disconnect for people. For example you make a great point I mean I致e had the same conversation as you just mentioned with people, they say I would rather have a gasoline tax. I知 not sure that everybody understands that 95% of the people have to go and buy a gallon of gasoline. They won't be 95% of this community that will go and buy a toll tag. So when you bring that -- that up in that context, people do understand about oh, I don't know that I would -- that I would want to do that. Maybe they would, but unless you fully educate people and -- the point that I知 making here, I値l hush, is that we need to be prepared that if we're going to go and we're going to ask or promote or advocate for something, that we are able to have -- to have a credible argument for if this were to happen, what -- what cause might you have for doing this. I -- and I have never seen a comprehensive study done that would really be able to lay out for people what they need to do. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do this. But I mean if we do it, then we are going to need to be prepared to say well okay if we did that, what would that do to our toll roads, what would that do to our ad valorem taxes if all of a sudden you don't take 25% out of fund 6 to pay for education. I don't know that there's anybody equipped to do that, I mean, maybe there has been or maybe there's a study, you know, going on right now. But I haven't seen it, nor have I heard about it. So I just do think that we need to be aware that we're going to go, we're going to promote and advocate or maybe it's not an advocacy deal as much as it is that we are supportive of taking a look at something like this, knowing that we need a little more information than what we have.
>> a couple more things. One is that I think that -- that some of the other regions are way ahead of us on transportation issues. Fairly comprehensive transportation plans in place for years and implemented them. So we may be able to learn from them. The other thing is that I do think that it is a good idea to try to figure out why tak and cuc are. Tac. I would think that the executive directors can give you a pretty good idea of where the membership has been historically and what they seem to be saying now and whether they plan to attend these senate hearings and what they plan to say. It may be that they have generated ideas that we have not that they would like to support. But I do agree that part of this is studying it, getting real serious about evaluating options and maybe landing on one or more. So that -- that's a good sign. The last session, one before it, when we went over and talked about terminating the diversion from fund 6 I mean you really were not getting good listeners. They had pretty much eliminated that possibility from day one and it may be because they were in a financial bind, too. But we were looking at sizable surpluses. So I thought that the time to do it was then. But it shocked me that we saw so little interest in it. If the e-mails tell the story, there is a heightened level of interest on the average residents who feel pinched a little bit by toll projects state-wide. I just think since they are here in town, convenient for us, we ought to go over and have our say if we have one. I think we have to do whatever we can between now and next Tuesday sign-off on something, maybe get our most eloquent county staff member, if joe gieselman happens to be on vacation next week, our second best. To go over and do it for us.
>> well, I -- first of all, I don't think it will be the last meeting that we have.
>> timbuctoo meeting.
>> that may be. I would love to have a conversation with our representative that's going to go over there. Quite frankly I知 going to have some questions of that person. If you go over there and advocate for this, you get asked this, what is your response to that? I mean, what is Travis County's response if -- are you over here promoting a local gasoline tax, or are you over here promoting the opportunity to have a local gasoline tax?
>> any local gasoline tax is going to have to go to referendum. I don't think that's really a question. That's a political reality. There's no possibility of a local gasoline tax imposed by the state without a referendum.
>> I知 not saying that. I agree with that. You're right. It has to be --
>> we ought to have draft written comments to approve.
>> I would have to go back -- that's the correct answer. Those so much about incremental financing. The gas tax is the traditional form. That is not at all wrong, that is a more regressive way to do system financing than the gas tax. That's the reason why -- why people are -- people are clamoring for a glass tax increase -- gas tax increase in lieu of toll taxes, that's not an irrational or unfounded position from a tax equity standpoint. Also tremendous amount of research out there regarding transportation financing. We're not operating in a dearth of information. We are operating in a -- in a avalanche of information. At the federal level there is a raging argument with lots and lots of information on both sides. Transportation infrastructure to continue to pay for it and expand it, versus a a mix of privatization and gas taxes versus a stick with the same method. We have got to have this conversation. We can't be afraid to wade into it for -- for lack of unamity or a clear path forward.
>> sarah, you said something that -- let me make sure that I understand what you said. You think that toll -- toll taxing or tolling, because some people wouldn't call a toll a tax. I realize some people call toll a tax. That cannot be more regressive than gasoline taxing.
>> yes it can.
>> gasoline taxing, 95% of us have to go or choose to go and buy a gallon of gasoline. 95% of us don't have to. 100% of us have the ability to not go and buy toll. I mean it's more regressive when you have something that you know that most people are going to have to go and buy and that is a gallon of gasoline. To me that is much more regressive. I mean you know you are right, we probably need to have this conversation out loud because there -- you and I differ greatly on -- on that.
>> let's have alternative language. Our vote will be divided on that, whether we advocate the toll roads, whether we advocate the sales tax.
>> this conversation has also been held at the cuc with all of the counties at the table. And that's why it would be good to touch base with cuc and get their information, their body of information that they have had for a while and on which they have, you know, they have given facts on the pro side and they have facts on the con side. So that -- that would be very useful for -- for us to -- to have.
>> as well as gathering information from campo and the ctr.
>> absolutely.
>> yeah.
>> but all of this, the people have gone through this exercise already. The information is there, so we can look at the pro and the con when it comes here.
>> right.
>> are you going on vacation today or --
>> no, no, no, the 23rd.
>> you leave on the 23rd?
>> yes. Right, I do.
>> there's plenty of work to be done between now and the 22nd, mr. Gieselman. I put my recommendation in the form of a motion that we ask staff basically to do the things that we have described. Sort of put together different points that Travis County Commissioners court raised, pull our legislation from two sessions ago to look at it and try to revive it. Touch base with cuc, tac and others, ctrma, campo, any others in the transportation area who have claimed to possess expertise, whether we have doubted it or not. And basically put together a list of talking points with supporting data, facts, et cetera for our review next week and we'll review that with an eye to adopting comments to be submitted from Travis County and next week we will decide who will go to the senate hearing and make the presentation for us. Was that motion long enough or did you want me to add some more?
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>>
>> [laughter]
>> you second that motion? Discussion? If -- if Commissioners Daugherty and eckhardt have been interested in this area for a long time, if you want to run by members of the court which you can do legally and get feedback. How is that?
>> that's fine. I would be happy to help.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. See there's agreement on the court on some transportation stuff.
>> [laughter] maybe we'll have this like later in the day next week, just in case we need the morning for additional work. How's that?
>> would it be 13? That's a quick one.
>> yes, sir.
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, April 16, 2008 8:51 PM