Travis County Commissioners Court
April 22, 2008
Item 32
32 to consider and take appropriate action on whether to testify, submit comments or otherwise participate in upcoming hearings before the homeland security.
>> last week you directed the department to research what everyone else was doing and to more or less come up with a policy statement one of you can take to the hearing tomorrow or to just send to bob cam and have them present it. And my understanding Commissioner eckhardt is going to make that presentation.
>> I値l be happy to if it's the will of the court. I intend to be there anyway.
>> okay. What we've researched -- and we've given you attachments. The attachment two that stripes the five goals of transportation for 2009 that they came up with which is the capital area transportation coalition. The central Texas regional mobility authority plans to testify. We had hoped to get their papers before, but they haven't prepared it as yet. The council of urban counties, they -- they were unsure whether they were going to have a policy statement, and if able they were going to send it to bob cam's office before the meeting tomorrow. Txdot, bob day, he's directed his staff to write a paper to have send over for the hearing. And capital area met poll ton planning will be providing testimony another the hearing. What we've given you is attachment 1 is suggestion of your policy position that you may want to take. Appropriate highway user fees. The first item is appropriate highway user fees and tax revenue for highway construction and maintenance. What currently the fee is dedicated on the general fund. Travis County supports efforts to redirect 200 or 250 million dollars to the revenue of the Texas mobility fund. The additional funding will help provide leverage for future transportation projects. Then the second item we said is index motor fuels tax. Normal inflation increases, and just goes on to tell you what inflation increases are and Travis County supports the concept of motor fuel tax be linked to highway cost index for some indicators so that the motor fuel tax increases as the cost of maintenance and construction grows.
>> could you repeat that?
>> what we're saying is that as the cost of construction and maintenance grows, that they increase the motor fuel tax and dedicate linkage to the highway increase cost index.
>> also it should be noted that studies indicate that the deterrent effect in gas taxes in regard to getting people to drive less is only seen when you dedicate the revenue to actually transportation projects. When you are using it as a general fund source, there's no deterrent.
>> yes, ma'am. And there has been no increase in the state fuel tax since 1991 and no federal increase since 1993.
>> but when that was proposed, what, a couple sessions ago, two or three sessions, I mean, it's come up before the legislature more than once.
>> yes.
>> as far as that issue is concerned. Have we had any type of feedback and every time it looks like it comes up it's always turned down or defeed. Have we had any feedback as to what the Travis County delegation, what position they are taking on that at this point? I mean, have we had any type of indication for that type of -- because it's come up before.
>> yeah. And I don't recall what it was in the last session. While I participated with bob and chris, I really don't remember what it was, what the end result --
>> it was 122 to 19 against.
>> that's a heck of a hurdle there, Commissioner. But at any rate, I don't really have a flavor for what disposition of any of this at this point, I really don't. I know the legislature is coming up and that's an issue, but be good to see what feelers are out there. 122 to 19 is a pretty wide, margin, Commissioner, if that's accurate information. So I知 still -- anyway, I didn't mean to cut you off, carol, but I think it needs to be a little background on what we're talking about here and as far as where we are.
>> and I could check with bob and talia to see if there is any changes. They didn't mention any when we spoke to them recently, so I really don't know if the vote would be any different.
>> the decision from the federal government advising Texas that it will receive substantially less dollars than the feds had committed and that we expected. The other thing has been the increase in gasoline prices.
>> exactly.
>> being felt statewide. The third one, I think, is there is fairly widespread opposition to toll roads statewide and so last time looked like Travis County was getting a whole lot of heat on those toll roads. I guess some other counties though, colin county, places like that. Where some of the elected officials kind of went down, they believe, as a result of positions they took on toll roads. Those have been three developments since we had our sort of local legislation over two sessions ago. Not that I知 real optimistic about it, but I would think everybody that looks at this seriously soon realizes we're running out of options. Everybody seems to think the status quo is unacceptable so the question becomes what do you do, and it takes additional money to construct some of these projects.
>> judge, I think that the thing that we are challenged with is that most people think that there is monkey business going on with the amount of dollars that there really are regarding, you know, the availability for dollars towards roadways. I mean, people do not believe that txdot is in the financial crisis -- I say people. A lot of people do not think that txdot is in the financial crisis that it's in. In. All you got to do is ask people on the streets. That's the reason they are against toll roads. They are not very excited about gasoline tax. And I don't know how you get over that hurdle. I mean, because when you tell people this is really what the deal is, it doesn't help that about the time you think that you want to believe that, then something else comes out that txdot --
>> was keeping two sets of books and not reconciling them.
>> made another billion dollar error so it adds to the whole cynicism about what people really believe.
>> they were keeping two sets of books was monkey business -- monkey business error against them. They thought they had more money than they actually had.
>> that's right. I think that it really bit them. But the truth of the matter is is that people still think that, I think. I mean, you know, and if you are -- and the reason -- Commissioner Davis, the reason it was probably 122 to 19 is because most lawmakers didn't want to go back to their districts when gasoline was, you know, and that was when gasoline was $2 to $2.25 a gallon. And now you got these guys coming back in town and with all likelihood by the time they get back in 2009, we're talking 3.50 to $4 a gallon. If you think that 122 wasn't excited about voting for it when it was $2.25 a gallon, I mean what do you think the level of interest is going to be whenever it's $4.25 a gallon. Which is -- index in the gas tax is tough. Increasing the motor fuels tax is even going to be more difficult. And that's not to say, I mean I for one believe that there is a funding crisis. Otherwise I wouldn't have voted for the toll plan. That is the reason I voted for the toll plan is because I do think that there is a financial crisis at txdot with building added roadway capacity. And if people don't understand that, I mean to me you -- doing something else, which is what I continued -- a number of us that work on the campo board, you need to come up with something else. My response is if you don't think that something else wouldn't have gotten a 19-0 vote if it would have been legitimate, but you just can't throw to it the wind and say, well, you just come up with something else.
>> but these policy progresses an attempt to get to something else. That's what these policy positions are about is getting a something else, another option that we could vote for.
>> well, I mean, I agree, except for the fact that you are still going to have the basic person out there on the street thinking that you already have enough money and all you are doing is getting in our pocket either with indexing the fuel tax or increasing the motor fuel tax.
>> but do you believe that's true? Do you believe that's true?
>> no, I believe that we are in a crisis and that we have got to come up with every mechanism, and I think the toll roads -- I think toll roads, as you and I have spoken before about, is more equitable for people than increasing the gas tax, even though I say that, I mean I知 supportive of that because I think you mean a combination of all of these things to make it work.
>> and we did disagree with regard to the regressiveness of those two taxing mechanisms. But again, these bullets, these one, two, three, four, five bullets are policy positions. They are not politics positions. These are policy positions in order to broaden our ability to respond to what we agree is a fiscal crisis.
>> but if we look at the -- and I know locally, you know, the buck stops here. You know, we talk about all these different things, but the local governments are the ones that have to bear the brunt, the closest government folks have to them. Right now there is a lot of debate, a lot of discussion at the national level about the infrastructure needs across not only here in state of Texas, but we're talking about infrastructure deficits and infrastructure necessities that a lot of states are hollering about. And because of conditions, if you want to bring that up, about the war in iraq, the amount of money that's being sent there to deal with a lot of situations, a lot of folks say this money should be coming back to this country to deal with a lot of needs that are cropping up such as the deterioration of infrastructure. At the national level. But, of course, at the local level, we have have look at this. And of course right now the crunch and the pinch on the average person that has to fuel their tanks up, people are spending $100 just to fuel their vehicles right now. I really feel that we do have some time to look at some opportunities that may reveal itself in the next upcoming election, this coming up election in November that will allow us to look at the big picture and see where we're going naturally on infrastructure deterioration not only here in Travis County but the entire country. And it's a big issue. A magnitude issue. I really am not comfortable at this point to jump ahead of situations where we may get money returning back to this country to deal with a lot of the things that we have that is deteriorating as far as infrastructure needs here in -- not only in Travis County, the state and all across the nation. There are some things I think we need to -- coma things I think we need to put on the table. But I do know this, that the afternoon person that's driving a vehicle back and forth to work every day and everything else is feeling a great pinch of just trying to go to work. I mentioned pawn shop this morning. That is a reality. People are pawning stuff to go to work. Fill their vehicles up. That is reality. Now, what we do about it is something that may not be in our control. At the national level I think is something we also need to examine when it comes to the infrastructure deterioration and the maintenance locally and also across the nation.
>> number 4.
>> to cap or reduce the diversion for fund 6, which currently 24% of the gas tax by the state of Texas goes to the public schools and 13% goes to the department of public safety. Txdot receives 59% of the gas tax. Travis County supports a recollection or diversion or capping the diversion so it stays at that and txdot at least gets the 59% add infinitum. Number 5 is to establish a local option transportation tax. Attachment 3 is the resolution to the legislative session that senator barrientos introduced a bill back in last legislative session and what that does is state that gasoline be used within the county for local transportation projects. That the local tax be used within the county for transportation projects. The bill was left pending in committee, didn't go very far, so I don't know that it will have much more support this time, but at least maybe we could reintroduce it.
>> it was a sad day. It would have been sadder had we known it was dead, it died so quietly. Let me ask you this. Why wouldn't one of our points be to get the state to ask the federal government to stop the rescisions and increase the federal allocation to transportation projects? Seems to me that we would ask them to ask that whether they do or not and we ought to ask the feds that whether they comply or not.
>> that certainly can be.
>> now, I know congress has been looking at various infrastructure needs nationwide. And the feds and the state go together on the state highways, right?
>> that's correct.
>> that's what I would -- that's what I would do. And there are several ways for the -- for congress to deal with it. I mean, I wouldn't even mention anything else. I would just mention these two things, increase the federal allocation or federal funding and stop the resituations. Because every time we receive a notice of rescision, what they've done, it's not they don't have the money she they've taken that money and diverted it to another purpose. Not that the other purpose is not important, but if it's that's important, generate additional revenue and cover it.
>> there's a related point to that.
>> I知 sorry. Judge, how would that be -- see what you just suggested is something I could support. How -- what mechanism would be utilized to get that result that you were putting on the table? Because, you know, nationally it's a big deal all across the country. It ain't just here with Travis County. It's all over the country.
>> if it's not important to the legislature, it will not be important to the other state leaders and so it won't reach the federal government. But yn why the other states -- I don't know why the other states wouldn't do the same thing.
>> how do we do it. I hear as far as what you are suggesting here.
>> it's one of our recommendations to the senate committee.
>> it would also be a federal lobbying effort because, of course, the senate committee probably won't do a whole lot on our behalf at the federal level. And there are also related initiative policy discussion about asking the feds to no longer use the state agency as the pass-through finance -- financing mechanism. That the federal money would go directly to the regional mpfs.
>> my point is not that complicated. My thing is for us to urge other counties and cities in the state of Texas to urge their legislators to urge congress to stop the rescisions and to increase the federal allocation to transportation projects. Keep it simple like that, you can't misunderstand it. There are a whole lot of ways to get that done, and they ask, well, how do we get this done, then I would do it. But if we focus on money coming in our cog, I think we will lose support. If we focus on money coming to state of Texas and we'll deal with txdot and get our regional share. I壇 keep it real simple. It would be hard enough to get the point over, but I don't know why everybody in the state wouldn't support that. Can you see what I知 saying?
>> I understand.
>> and the pot of federal money is a whole lot bigger than the state's pot, and the state's pot is a whole lot bigger than ours. But that is part of our problem today and if the rescisions keep coming, then it will be even -- an even larger part of our problem. So there are two things. And if they do both, it's fine, but even if they just stop the rescisions, it will be a big deal because we're looking at over a billion dollars in the last couple of months.
>> I would also wonder why we wouldn't also include the Texas urban transportation alliance's last provision identifying and appropriating resources to the real relocation fund since the Austin-san antonio rail corridor remains an unattainable goal without it.
>> I guess the question is how much detail do we want. I知 just -- I知 visualizing larger sacks of money coming to Texas. And with us having the discretion to figure out what specific projects we would fund. See what I知 saying?
>> uh-huh.
>> that project I know matters to us, san antonio and probably points in between. I don't know that the project would matter to the rest of the state. But if we get the money, maybe they won't care about how we spend it. If it's our fair share. You see what I知 saying? So maybe we can word it more generally.
>> right, and the wording for the Texas transportation -- Texas urban transaction alliance doesn't specifically state what rail project, it only guess to moving freight rail out of urban centers. So that those urban rail lines could ultimately be used for commuter rail, thereby taking load off of our already congested highways.
>> well, I guess --
>> [inaudible]. My hole point as I stated earlier is looking at where we are, as mentioned earlier, because I知 quite sure that the same challenges that we are experiencing here in Travis County, I知 quite sure that there are similar challenges throughout every county in the state of Texas, and not only that throughout the nation. So it is a federal deal, and I think that the shifting of the challenges that we have should go to the federal level, as I stated earlier, infrastructure is a big deal all across the nation. And it appears to me that we need to move forward and shift that responsibility to the federal government as far as getting money in here. I don't know any other way to say it other than that. And I can support that. Stop rescision I guess is something else that we need to look at. Not taking in consideration all these other things, but right now we've got to stop the bleeding. And to do that, I think we need a band dade for the federal government that will get us not only Travis County some relief, relief for the entire state and also the entire nation for those folks that -- but we can only speak for Travis County.
>> although I do think we have to recognize that the federal government is much further in the red than the state of Texas even dreams of being, and they haven't raised their gas tax, which is roughly equivalent to the state gas tax in almost as long. And the current head of the u.s. Department of transportation is a massive proponent of the privatization of the federal highway system, and even in a political fee change in washington, it would still take a number of years before we would ever get to a point where the coffers would be rebuilt. The federal funds are about to go into the red, and rebuilding them will take a number of years.
>> well, I was thinking about my federal income tax as being a good source, not necessarily --
>> [laughter]
>> but, you know, like I say, have I no problem with a lot of these things, but I want to make sure the favor of what I talked about will be an election in November and it may be a different spin on the infrastructure deficits that are experiencing, not only bridges, roads, the whole nine yards. It's just a big deal. So anyway, I致e said my two cents worth on it. So thank you.
>> I hear two recommendations.
>> are we clear on where we're going to go?
>> we've got five bullets. I recommended number 6. Commissioner eckhardt recommended number 7. Being make annual appropriations to the rail relocation fund.
>> identify and appropriate sources to the rail relocation fund.
>> where does it come from?
>> that's what identify is about.
>> can we put the caveat that it can't come from road funds?
>> no, we cannot, because that's most likely where it will come from so the people will have an option of whether to use roads or rail.
>> that's crazy to pull it out of the roads fund because the roads are going to carry much, much, much -- to the eighth power.
>> > then we will continue to put all you have our investment into rubber tire for the single person occupant instead of moving towards a sustainable transit policy.
>> that's not a more sustainable transit policy, in my opinion.
>> I知 not ready to vote on this today. I値l abstain before I vote.
>> the hearing is coming up.
>> tomorrow.
>> I知 talking as far as I知 concerned to support it. I understand about the hearing, but what I知 trying to say is that the things that we have discussed here today, I think should be looked at and examined very, very closely. And I can support I think some of the things that I致e stated earlier. I still think there is a wait and see attitude as far as what the national government is going to do. There's an election before us. And those particular topics have been discussed at the national level as far as how we deal with the national infrastructure needs all across the country, which includes Travis County. And they have not had an opportunity to examine a lot of things, and even though we're hear this first year, the state of Texas, that's fine, but at the end of the day I want to make sure we are
>> [inaudible] to get the necessary money that may be made available to us in the future. And I think it's there. So, but anyway --
>> moi motion is to approve to five bullets in the backup and the sixth one recommended by our county judge.
>> second.
>> stop the rescisions and to increase the federal allocation to transportation projects.
>> judge, could we separate that? That last part thaw just mentioned is something I can support. These others, you know, I --
>> the other five?
>> you want me to take credit for the other five?
>> yes.
>> that last one I can support. It's a lot of --
>>
>> [inaudible]. Separate them out. Five bullets set forth in the backup. That's the one you want to abstain on, right?
>> yes. Because there's a lot of other information I need to tie with that and I知 not comfortable going with that. The one I can support the last one we discussed fits exactly what I知 suggesting.
>> on the five bullets, all in favor. Commissioner Davis abstains, the rest of the court supports it. Bullet number 6 would be the one urging the federal government to stop the rescisions and to increase the federal allocation for transportation projects, and tomorrow say Texas transportation projects.
>> are we including stop precision and diversion? There's a significant amount of diversion at the federal level as well.
>> that's fine with me. My thinking is if you increased the federal allocation, we wouldn't care how they did it. The beauty of the Biscoe point, it's straightforward and simple and hard to misunderstand. Any more discussion?
>> did somebody second? Commissioner Gomez seconded it.
>> show a unanimous court enthusiastically supporting it.
>> do you want me to --
>> pardon me?
>> if you are going to be there and present it, I think that would be good.
>> I壇 be happy to.
>> make sure bob has it too.
>> and I値l send it to bob and send you all an updated one in a couple hours.
>> okay.
>> thank you.
>> thank you so much.
>> I think he wha we ought to do do is -- we ought to question c.u.c., Texas association of counties, bob day about getting the rest of the state to join us in asking the feds to stop the rescision and increase the funding.
>> we have sent them when we sent it out and I値l get this last bullet point, the judge's point to them as well and see. We spoke with bob and c.u.c. And different planners.
>> and the conference of urban counties is having their conference at villa harbor and much of this will be discussed in regard to the implementing of strategy around it.
>> I値l get it out.
>> anything further on this item? Carol, thank you for your dedication, hard work, et cetera, and standing in for joe.
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 23, 2008 8:51 PM