Travis County Commissioners Court
March 17, 2009,
Item 25
25 is to consider and take appropriate action on legislative matters, including, a, legislation relating to appraisal caps and revenue caps, including house bill 1576 and senate bills 402 and 700.b, house bill 562 relating to certain employment functions of county government.
c, house bill 337 relating to the costs of holding certain joint elections.
d, legislation relating to local option for transportation funding, including house bills 9 1674, and 3448, and senate bills 855 and 942.
and e is an added item, house bill 2524 relating to the accuracy, security and reliability of certain electronic voting systems.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners.
>> good morning.
>> happy to be in front of you here today.
happy saint patrick's day to the members the court and the listening public.
first I want to set a context for this by talking about the legislative statistics from the other day.
i think we have copies here but if not, we'll pass them out later.
between, on Thursday and Friday of last week over 1,000 bills were filed in the house and 5,000 filed in the senate.
we're still working through that and there are some statistics we have.
the increase in the number of total bills filed between last session and this section is up 20 percent, 21 percent.
so a lot of legislation to look through.
your county staff continues to do that.
we have added 200 bills to the number of bills that we're tracking now and have nal used over 375 bills as of this morning.
so there's a lot of work to be done.
the committees continue to meet as we speak, the senate debating the voter i.d.
bill.
but of course house committees are meeting.
there are 77 bills that we're tracking that are currently scheduled for committee hearing.
with that in mind, we have a lot of business to do.
there are 77 days remaining in the session so we're almost to the halfway point.
so that is the context of what we're talking about.
item a on your agenda has to do with appraisal reform, caps and revenue caps.
there is a, last week when the court visited, they adopted a set of principles.
and as part of that conversations, judge, you asked if there were previous statements that the court had made that we could use in terms of trying to make additional statements in the future.
we did some research and found a resolution that the court had passed in 2006, which is in your packet.
then we also found packets that the court had, that we think either the court or the auditor's office had prepared in 2004 that had some very helpful background information about property tax caps beth appraisal and revenue caps.
so some of that information is excerpted in your backup terms, as well as a draft of a new resolution that we would propose that the court adopt.
i believe that you have copies of the new resolution as well.
>> the new resolution has today's date on it.
>> it has today's date on it and says whereas the Texas legislature is considering measures to address appraisal reform, lowering the roll back rate and reducing property tax collections during its regular session, and so on.
our recommendation would be that the court adopt the resolution which includes a specific resolution by the court to oppose the three bills that are posted on the agenda tor today with respect to this issue, house bill 1576, senate bill 402 and senate bill 700.
>> I move approval.
>> second.
>> motion to approving the proposed resolution and second by Commissioner Gomez.
discussion?
this is pretty consistent with the position we have taken previously.
>> yes, sir in fact, this resolution is based on the resolution that the court adopted in 2006.
>> all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
we did some of our best work being in those days.
>> yes, sir.
but even better work to come.
item b has to do with house bill 562.
this is a bill regarding, relating to certain employment functions of county government.
you remember last week the court discussed house bill 561, which was a bill having do with the role of the county auditor and the relationship between the county auditor and the Commissioners court.
this bill is in a sense a companion to house bill 561, addresses some additional issues, but it merges out of some of the same tengs in colin county between the Commissioners court there and the county auditor.
i'd like to just, if I can, introduce abel bake the auditor's office to give a brief overview of the bill.
>> April bacon, Travis County audit tor's office.
the bill is actually sectioned out a little bit.
and again as dee says, it is sort of specifically set up to deal with certain conflicts they are having up in their county.
right now at least one portion of it is population scaled specifically to colin county.
i believe in the next census they are anticipating that they will move up in a new population bracket.
when they do that, population bracket section that is currently in law that we have all been living with for quite a number of years will be something that they will be moving into.
so they are wanting to make some changes.
basically right now, it would not affect us.
but if for some reason there was a substitute, and we know that these things happen on these bills, that was sort of our concern at this point.
i think that there are some other sections in there that are not necessarily population scaled.
but in Travis County payroll is basically processed, as you know, in the individual departments, time sheet entry and all those things occur out in those departments.
then it goes through the hrmd department.
they have certain things in place that they do.
for example, they implement your budget and staffing decisions with regards to compensation.
they are --their part of computer system opens up positions and controls, you know, when you girve somebody a new piece of staff, they are the ones that implement that.
then it rolls over for us to review on the payroll end of it.
and the reason y'all have sort of set it up like this, it provides some really great internal controls.
no one person could very easily, for example, put a ghost employee on the payroll because only hr can do that, put that position within that framework.
but then again, they are not doing the time entry, not doing the other end of it.
so what we have here works very well for us.
i think it's very strong in the internal controls.
the language that they would be changing in that section would create some confusion over those processes.
and so we would have some concerns and want to keep an eye on this bill.
if for some reason it calm out of committee or if it was substituted, we would want to make sure that nothing about the bill would particularly affect us.
the only other thing that would I point out in there, there was another section that had to do with them setting qualifications for the sheriffs office.
and I wasn't sure what that was.
they actually had the hearing on this bill last week, and at the time they talked about having some problem with bailiffs and apparently the sheriff substitutes that a bailiff that might not be certified up there, although, you know, they want to have certified officers in the cort house.
the way that would affect us wouldn't be on the bailiff end because we don't except for a couple of courts would not maybe put certified officers in there.
but it might impact the sheriffs office in the sense that it would maybe provide less flexibility for the sheriff to substitute in someone in a circumstance where they had somebody out for the day.
it just would tax --take, I believe, flexibility for that.
but again you might want to talk to the sheriff to see if that would impact them more directly.
>> our recommendation at this point, jump, would be to oppose the legislation as filed and continue to monitor and report back to the court.
>> I move we oppose.
>> second.
>> what are the numbers that indicate what counties would be covered?
the population?
>> the population bract in the statute right now is 500,000.
i'm guessing that was probably like harris county bill in 1956.
we have all sort of grown into it.
the way they have the language right now is is seg like the first county to reach the population bracket after 2010.
i'm not sure whether there would be other counties that would reach that population bracket after 2010 or whether it's just any one who has more than 500,000 in 2010.
i don't know how you determine who would be the first to reach it.
so it's, again, one of those things, the intent is to bracket it for them.
we're not sure how the language would be read on that.
>> if we oppose this, shouldn't we give word to colin county that we oppose this, but if it doesn't impact us, basically we are neutral.
>> sure.
i think that would be a good idea.
>> or we consider it a local bill in colin county?
>> well, it's drafted in a sense to apply only to colin county and I think everybody knows that but some of the provisions in it, as April pointed out, are really drafted to have potential statewide application.
>> well--
>> shouldn't our opposition be based on some of the loose language that may be interpreted to apply to us?
>> yes.
>> eem assuming that whoever filed this filed in it good faith.
what we are saying is it may be a good thing for colin county but for us it's the worse thing in the world so we are in opposition.
but if it doesn't affect us, then we are neutral.
there are ways to clear up the language to make sure--
>> right.
clear up the bracketing.
>> I would think that of the large counties with the population over half a million or in the same position we are, right?
we would rather not have this.
>> yes.
>> so I guess--
>> could be that colin county hasn't considered that.
just apply to it your own county and don't try to have empact on the others.
>> as April said, think it was the intent of the author to bracket it only for colin county but the language is a little imprecise.
because of that, it could be misconstrued to apply to other counties.
the other problem of course, at any point along the process somebody could just take out a sentence and all of a sudden it would apply to all the counties.
>> and our position is based on that.
>> and one way or the other?
>> the cox county also opposes the bill as filed.
>> that would give us some indication.
>> who is the author of the bill?
>> representative jerry maden from the ridge scenario.
>> uh-huh.
>> what committees is he on?
he is from colin county.
>> I believe he is on, vice-chair of corrections.
>> right.
>> been around quite a few years, right?
>> yes, he has.
>> I guess what I'm saying, no reason to tick off some of the sponsors if we can avoid it.
however, we ought to be like the other large counties.
this is not good for us.
>> yeah.
>> right.
>> we oppose it as it is.
but to the extent that it's cleaned up.
>> and not affect is Travis County.
>> right.
>> our position is based on that.
>> uh-huh.
>> all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
i guess even when we communicate to our delegation, we let them know that, right?
>> yes, we will.
>> this is as worded.
if it applies to us, this is a bad thing.
so we're against it.
but if it's cleaned up where it doesn't affect us.
>> right.
we can be neutral.
>> right.
>> take our dog out of that hunt.
>> exactly right.
>> item c has to do with house bill 337, which relates to the cost of holding certain joint elections.
what this bill would do is allow f an independent school district is holding an election, the county would be responsible for the cost of, for the school district' share of holding that election.
and the county clerk is here to visit with the court about this bill.
and also about number e but we can come to that I i guess, after that.
>> thank you very much, dee.
good morning.
the author of the this bill is patricia har list.
she comes from spring, Texas.
i can guess that some of the, or the origin of this bill had to do with the cypress fairbanks school district.
if you all know anything about what is happening down in cypress spring.
i don't think there was any intent for aisd to have a preelection at Travis County's expense.
nevertheless, I would request that the court be against this bill and we'll let them work out their problems.
>> historically, if aisd calls an election, out of cycle election, I guess, then they would pay for it?
>> well, yes.
the bill calls for free election in a joint election scenario.
so that would be really any joint election that the county is conducting.
so essentially it could be a may election.
it certainly does refer to November elections.
>> whereas we typically would allocate costs to participating entities.
>> yes, we do.
we share.
and we have a very liberal program about, we don't charge our jurisdictions for use of equipment or anything like that.
we just, we try to be as helpful as we can.
some of the school district around the state are start to go about the cost of elections having resin so much because of the federal help america vote act.
we sympathize with their feelings.
it's ed us too.
but this bill will not help all of us deliver free and fair elections to our voters.
>> right now we have interlocal agreements that govern our relationships with other entities in the county.
i guess my question is, again, I'm going to go back to the council, cuc, and see what their position is on this.
council of of urban counties.
do we know what they, are they aware of this?
or do they participate as Travis County does for those kind of relationships?
>> thank you, Commissioner.
that is exactly what I would like to ask for from the court for help today.
i'd like for help getting the word out to the conference of urban counties.
certainly our local delegation.
>> yeah.
>> anyone else you suggest.
i have contacts with the association of school boards.
just try to get the word out that we are going to be opposing this bill.
i do not know if it will be scheduled for a hearing.
>> okay.
>> and Commissioner Davis, in response to your question, the conference of urban counties has come out against this bill.
>> I move approval.
>> moo move that we oppose.
>> second.
>> house bill 337 for the reasons stated.
that was seconded.
discussion?
all in favor.
show Commissioners Gomez, Huber and yours truly, and Commissioner Davis, a late voting member, in opposition.
>> you looked over here last.
>> dee?
>> if we could take up.
now because it is also relating to the county clerk.
>> for taking care of the county clerk today.
>> great job.
>> 2524, relating to access, security and reliability of certain electronic voting systems.
i ask the county clerk to share her thoughts.
>> thank you, representative anchi is from the dallas area.
he has written a bill, let me regroup just a little bit.
the Texas election code when it talks about security procedures for voting systems, so much of the language in the code was based on paper based systems.
the code has not ever really been updated enough so that it takes into consideration that the new voting systems that we have, whether optical scan or all dre do have any electronic that should be tested.
what the bill does is said we should have steps ef logic and act rate testing.
the bill goes through great detail to explain exactly how that is supposed to be done in an electronic environment.
once again, dre or optical scan.
the work that the representative is doing on this bill matches so perfectly with Travis County's attitude about our electronic voting system.
we have a very tough set of standards here in this county for the testing that we do to prove that the system is working as it should.
we do, the legal of testing that we do--level of testing that we do is extensive manual, logical testing hash code and parallel monitoring.
the author is considering adding hash code test to go his bill.
parallel monitoring will probably come in another session.
but I would very much like it if the court could get behind a bill that says we need to pay closer attention to the testing that is done, and not only support what Travis County has been doing for years, but also send that message to the rest of the state that if we want these systems to be trusted by the public, then the way we do that is to show our testing.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> the reason this is different from the status quo is because of--
>> niece are standard, judge, that Travis County already meets.
but this would be a uniform statutory requirement across the state that all the counties that use electronic voting systems have some of this, you know, this basic level of testing and programming done.
>> manual logic and accuracy testing, a certain type of testing.
>> more procedural concept as far as doing the same thing uniform, as you stated.
>> yes, that.
he is trying to make this uniform throughout the state.
>> right.
>> okay.
we have some of our vote rescue folk here.
are you all here on this item?
>> yes.
>> come forward at this time.
good morning.
>> this is like work.
>> sure is.
>> thank you.
i'm going to start off this morning.
my name is Karen renik, the founder of vote rescue.
we are are an elections integrity group.
we are supporters, favor happened counted paper ballots because they are a hundred percent transparent.
with that said, we are aware of representative anchia's bill.
we talked steps --extensively with his office last section about this bill and expressed our concern and nonsupport for this bill.
i just wanted to bring to the attention of the court two things.
first of all, I'd like to start off by telling the court, because I don't think that they are aware, that there's been a ruling made in germany in early March, I think March 3, essentially the highest court in germany, their supreme court, has basically ruled that voting with electronic voting machines that secretly counts vote is unconstitutional, which will mean that they will no longer be using these machines.
basically this is just sort of paraphrasing, they are saying no requirement on the part of the public for expert technical knowledge to understand is a reason why it's been thrown out.
the full upon observation of all essential steps of voting, especially the count of the vote, are important.
no amount of testing, even if beefed up, can substitute for public observation.
and that pertains particularly to representative anchia's bill.
one last comment that was brut up by an attorney who has been following this.
he says the question I'd like to ask that no one has an answer for is this.
why can't the united states, which opposed our constitution on the germans in 1949 after world war ii, achieve an equal performance in similar quick fashion.
veterans who served in the war have some especially pointed questions about why their country they liberate is now ahead of us in democratic full transparency.
the other thing I wantd to talk about this morning was to remind the court that we had presented testimony in written for me from dan wallich, I'll remind you he is a computer scientist, a professor at rice university.
he was hand picked to go to california at the request of the secretary of state when they did their top to bottom review.
and he just so happened to be on the team that reviewed equipment.
he has side repeatedly there's no amount of testing that can be done that can detect any sort of tampering.
i can read his report to you.
>> this is a report we have heard before?
>> yes, you have.
>> I wouldn't read it today then.
>> I won't read it but I'm going to just say that he does have a strong statement that hash code testing does not, will not detect anything, as well as logic and accuracy procedure.
so I would--
>> can I ask you a question?
>> you may.
>> I'm sitting here trying to think through this.
>> sure.
>> so if we keep using electronic voting equipment, are we better off with this bill or without it?
>> it won't make any difference at all.
>> all right.
if the committee that will work soon in fact recommends paper ballots and we go to paper ballots, this bill is irrelevant.
>> it won't have logic and accuracy testing.
the bill that anchian is proposing, as dana said, our current election code has hundreds and hundreds of pages that refer how on to conduct an election using paper ballots that are hand counted.
the part, I think it's title 8 or whatever, about voting systems is relatively small compared to what is in there already for paper ballots.
his bill specifically addresses how to enhance so-called security measures with the machines through doing testing, which models pretty closely what dana has been doing.
we're saying, and we said on numerous occasions, that the testing that she does will not detects any tampering done with the machines.
so we say why support a bill that gives a false sense of security by saying that this testing that you're going to do is going to protect people's votes and come up with more accurate results when it won't.
does that help aps your question?
>> just seems the me that if we're going to use electronic voting machines, then we ought to try to tighten it up as much as possible.
if we later vote to go to paper ballots, then how you do electronic voting becomes irrelevant.
>> that's right.
>> I'm not making a call.
i don't know whether this is better than the status quo or not.
i'm assuming that the author thinks it's better.
i guess the author is trying to respond to complaints that have been made about electronic voting equipment.
i'm still open on whether or not we ought to return to paper ballots.
i don't feel as strongly one way or another as many people do.
>> we appreciate that you are open to the subject.
>> right.
>> I must say that I have had recent conversations with representative anchia's legislative director.
like I said, I spoke with him at length last year about this.
he definitely, I think this bill was put in, I don't know, it baffled mean because therer so many other states in the country that are abandoning dre voting, electronic, which is what we use here in Travis County.
to use a phrase that's been overused, it's sort of like putting lipstick on a pig, we think.
we urge you not to support this, to show support for this bill.
we think it gives a false sense of encouragement that it's helping.
>> this would cover all electronic voting equipment, dana?
>> indeed, it would.
let me correct one misstatement that's been made, and that is that manual accuracy testing is used for every single voting system there is, including a paper system of any kind no matter how manual it is.
so you will always have this kind of testing.
and to require it for electronic voting is pretty much a no-brainer.
>> I'm in the clear.
you said logic and accuracy test is donener hand counting paper ballots?
i'd be curious to know how do you that.
>> just leak you do it for electronic.
you lay it out out and do every possible perm you tages and combination.
>> we'll give you a chance.
>> we have fox news, fair and balanced.
no.
what I'd like to say, there was a comment earlier that if we want the system to be trusted by the public we should adopt the bill.
what concerns me, in my work as a realtor, theer something is right or it's wrong.
so if I support it or condone with my clients I'm taking on a reresponsibility, what I qualify ry responsibility with my clients--fiduciary responsibility with my clients, to tell them what I know about something, what material evidence I have look at when I'm discussing information with my clients.
so I'm concerned here about the court's fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers, that if you condone this bill, again, it gives a false sense that your elections are safe.
and that really really concerns me.
that is the bottom line underneath this thing.
because we could go on and on here.
real quickly, the red team report for secretary of state deborah bolen, their conclusion, just about the heart machine alone this will just take a second, is that the red team did not have time to finish all the vulnerabilities they found in the heart of their system.
blah blah blah.
we were able to discover attacks that could compromise the accuracy, seacrest and availability of the voting systems and their auditing mechanisms.
the red team has developed exploits that absent procedural mitigation strategies, which it does mention that can alter vote totals, violate the privacy of individual voters, make systems unavailable and delete audit trails.
what concerns me further, if you go on and finish reading these studies, a voter or a presynched worker at the precincts level if you further read the studies, could spread a virus that could infect machines in Travis County.
not to mention the whole state.
let's take Travis County again.
undetectable with any type of testing whatsoever.
these teams showed that you could insert a virus that would flip election results and nobody would know it.
so, let's forget about the pros and cons.
we know that there are people in the ring that support electronic voting.
we don't.
let's just look at the issue again before this court this morning.
which is do we sign on to this letter and give a false sense to the unless you were to put a caveat in the letter and say we are still studying this issue and still don't think you should support it.
but you're still telling the public that you are condoning this bill and that it's okay with you because you feel that this testing will make your voting safe.
and it won't.
that is the problem.
and thank goodness you're going to have the election group, a committee that we're going to be all part of so that we can study this further.
but for this court the make this decision this morning that you are going condone this bill and give a false sense of security to the public, that is what truly deeply concerns me.
so again, you have the situation where these machines are vulnerable no matter what kind of testing is done.
to ignore the advice of doctor dan wallich.
none of us are computer experts in this room.
he is.
his letter clearly states this bill when it came up in thing is last time, when he read his testimony in front of the Texas legislative election committee and told him that the testing will not make voting safe.
so to condone and go forward with this letter, you're going against the advice of the only person that truly knows because he actually was paid to study this for the secretary of state in california, studied the hart system and told you this system will not detect, you still have the opportunity there for elections to not be safe and secure.
so that is mislead to go the public, in my opinion.
thank you very much for letting us talk.
>> I guess if we assume that the system is not as secure as it should be today, this seems to be an effort to increase security.
what you all are saying though, is that there is no way to make electronic voting equipment secure enough to use.
>> that.
>> therefore, we ought to go back to paper ballots.
>> sir?
>> therefore we should go back to paper ballots.
>> that is not what is on the table today but that is ultimately what we support.
what is on the table today is whether or not the court approves a letter that would show support from Travis County for this piece of legislation.
our position is we don't think the county should.
>> okay.
dana?
>> thank you.
>> then mr.
read.
>> sorry.
i jaucejust--just wanted to voice as a citizen my support for voice rescue, for the simple fact, I'm no computer expert but I do know that they are programmable.
frankly, when I ran for office I have reason to believe the results were altered against me.
but I don't have any evidence on that.
it's just common sense that paper ballot, the technology of making paper ballots and all the rules that our state is dutifully thought through and being able to watch the ballots and see them in the possession of the vorth machine, watching the tabulation, all that is not possible with any known machine or computer or anything like that.
so computers are programmable and it's possible to tamper with them, as opposed to paper ballots.
and I think it's something we should take the time.
we should celebrate the fact it might take a few days.
whatever it is.
it's so crucial that we get it right.
we're in no big hur year.
not to mention the waste of money the fancy machines cost.
paper ballots are virtually cost free in comparison.
so I'm in favor of the paper ballots.
>> yorl the date when paper ballots were cost free now.
>> come --cop paired to the commence of machines.
>> once you get them in house it's a matter of keeping them repaired.
we spent five million on the machines already.
4.1 million came from federal government,ist, state or federal.
not us.
but our investment was almost a million bucks.
those paper ballots, every time have you an election, have you to generate the ballots.
>> and the time to count them.
>> we ed dana next and--promised dana next and then back to you.
>> I want to say, there have been a lot of statements made today that many reasonable people would disagree with.
rather than go into the pros and cons about all the little detail about how many of the statements here are either incorrect or insupportable, let me just say that Travis County has been using hart east lack for the last six years.
our voters love it.
it works well and we get timely reports and we have not had problems with it.
that is just a fact of what we have gone on thew--through here.
so while we certainly want to make this as secure as we possibly can, I would also caution all of the members of the public who have been certainly alerted to half of the argument, that we do everything we can the make sure that our system works well, and we have every indication that in fact we are being very successful with our electronic voting system.
our security system has been recognized nationally as the way to two for the future for these systems.
so there is nothing wrong with the system we have right now.
i do not want to alarm the public that we have some kind of problem, when the fact is it's worked well for is for six years and that will be all I'll have to add today.
eem sure I'll get more rocks thrown.
but I still believe that how could you be against testing.
of course we want to make sure that we test.
and wouldn't it be great if every county had the standard that we're trying to propose as being appropriate for electronic voting.
and the standard that we use here came from the computers scientists such as dan wallich.
thank you.
that will be all my comments for today.
>> counterpoint?
>> real quickly, I would like the say for the public that dan a douse an outstanding job.
she does Ron an outstanding department in the country, every action she takes and every expert we brought in has told her in meetings what an amazing job she does and in the second breathe she said unfortunately as computer experts they were advising no amount of testing she does could still pick up err rant programing in the system, which is a problem.
quickly, relating to Travis County and this issue, I have a letter from the secretary of state of california dated December 19, 2007 poed on our website, cautioning the nevada county election clerk in the past had used four known utilities in their voting systems that were uncertified.
mr.
singer in his lawsuit mentioned the state of Texas, he was an employee that worked for hart intersive k, went to the secretary of state presenting equipment with uncertified software, and the whistle blower brought out the allegation to the secretary of state.
unfortunately with these issues which we are going to study in our election group, you have got situations in the anchia bill where it says there should be no uncertified software use in a veth --voting system.
i have articles from vendors across the country being sued from using uncertified software and doing things unbeknownst to the public and to election officials--
>> not in Travis County.
>> we have no way of knowing because the secretary of state unfortunately didn't follow through with mr.
singer's allegations and get their computer experts to pursue these allegations.
that never happened.
and that is the problem.
we have a system where there's not been follow up with certified people and computer scientists looking into the allegations and making sure.
still there's the unknown.
we can do all the testing on earth.
again, this letter today would give to the public, the people paying for these, it would give the embecause if we do this bill it's safe.
it's going to make voting safe.
there's reasonable doubt we're presenting today that may not be the case.
>> and we thank you for your input.
>> thank you.
>> I'd like to say that as been said before, this is not a debate today before us, a decision on whether or not we are supporting paper ballots or electronic ballots.
with the track record Travis County has in its security and reliability and accuracy and testing, I think we would be sending the wrong message if we didn't support this bill.
because there are others who need to follow the track record and efforts that we have made here.
and I think we would err if we did not support this bill in that respect.
>> the motion before us is to support house bill 2524.
anymore discussion?
all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> mr.
eckstein?
anything else today?
>> our final item is item d having to do with local options for transportation funding.
we have been before the court several times this spring talking about this issue.
as you know, there's an effort during this slate ef session to give counties the authority to, or local governments as well, the authority to raise their own revenue for local option transportation funding, with voter approval, and therefore to help meet some of the critical needs tor transportation that we have.
this has been an issue of great concern to the court, and the court has taken a possession in favor of expanding the options that counties specifically have with respect to local transportation funding.
there is a hearing tomorrow of a bill by senator john corona, the lead dog, if you will, on this issue.
in anticipation of that we wanted to revisit this issue with the court and ask the court to adopt a set of principles or set of talking points that we with like to present during testimony tomorrow.
i'd like at this point to turn it over to joe gieselman.
i also want to say our legislative consultant is here and there may be comments he may want to make late what you have before you is a matrix compares four different bills dealing with the subject, two in the senate and two in the house.
as dee said, the lead bill is the one by corona, 855.
it is a statewide bill but it has subchapters that redefine the governance of the bill for north Texas and central Texas.
so what you see before you is the bill as it applies to central Texas.
so it levers out a lot of the stuff--leaves out a lot of stuff that applies only to north Texas.
generally speaking the bills are start to go settle down.
there's some cross fertilization going on between the billings.
the two in the house are distengly different than the two in the senate but does allow for multiple options to be approved by the voters in each county.
the biggest issues are really the governance structure and what projects are eligible and how the projects are selected.
as you can see from the core own dcorona bill, the county in all four cases, the Commissioners court may call the election to determine the option that is chosen.
but they must hold an election if they are petitions by in the coyce of corona's bill, the advanced transportation district.
there's only one of those in Texas and that is san antonio, so it really doesn't apply to central Texas.
but in went worth's bill the court can be mandated to load an election if petitions by ten percent of the voters.
in the veryal bill, and the rodriguez bill, you can be mandated to load an election if municipalities with 60 percent of the vote petition you to have the election.
>> joe, with that, especially on the last phase, representative roll rig--rodriguez, will that also accommodate municipalities that call the election.
in other words we have common ground, the municipalities and also the county in some related transportation local option issues or whatever the subject matter may be.
my question is, is there any room or wiggle rom to make sure that if election is held with common interests, within counties, will the cost of the election be shared.
>> yeah.
>> okay.
>> the cost of the election or the county's cost.
but the election is on a standard election date.
so it's not going to cost the county anymore money than it would normally cost to hold an election.
it's an appendage to, think in all cases we were successful in embedding in all versions that it be a standard election date the so as not to cost the county more money than it would have.
>> I'm glad we got that clear.
thanks.
>> all right.
all of the bills, well, most of the bills require public hearing.
as I said earlier.
they all pretty much require the uniform election date.
when it comes down to how the projects are selected, there's a variety of ways that it's done.
the most generous is that the Commissioners court itself determine not only the funding option but what projects are presented to the voters.
but as you can see, when you get into the house versions, the advanced transportation district in san antonio actually selection the projects in consultation with the cities and mpo and rma and transit authority, and then hands them to the county to be placed on the ballot.
in the case of the rodriguez bill, the mpo selects the projects, actually controls the local option fund itself, and makes all the determination with regard to the projects and hands it off to the county for the ballot.
there are different governance structures embedded in each one of these bills.
in terms of what is eligible, the most generous application, eligibility, is for everything.
the corona bill is pretty much makes all transportation projects transit, freight, highways, parking lots, you name it, pretty much all eligible to be funded out of this local option.
went worth bill doesn't really specify, just generally county transportation needs.
when you get to the house version, they start putting restrictions on it.
for instance, the virial bill says no less than 80 percent of the funds must be spent on mass transit and also prohibits the use of the fund for toll roads.
in the case of the rodriguez bill, one option, the gas tax in particular, can only be used if it's deemed cons, if the constitution the mendel is passed by the voters allowing it to be used on nonroadway purposes.
currently there is a constitutional amendment that restricts the use of the fuel tax and the vehicle registration tax to roadway purposes only.
so there is some restriction currently in the law that would require those to be used only for that purpose.
another restriction under the rodriguez bill is projects designated have to be in a nonattainment county, which is right now Travis County.
the project would have to be exempt from the federal conformity requirements, exempt from regional emissions analysis, and quite fyable vehicle emissions reductions.
there is a significant restriction on the why is of the funds for roadway purposes as a result.
>> go ahead, joe.
>> in terms of funding options, the most generous is the went worth verth which was eleven different funding options.
the others are limited to six.
they would include a motor vehicle fuel tax upwards of about ten cents a gallon, a mobility fee ranging from $60 to $10 on vehicle registration, a drivers license renewal fee, sometimes that's a license fee.
that can be either $50 per license fee or $22 for the renewal every six years.
so that is somewhat different than various versions.
also first time registration fee of $250 for new vehicle registrations coming into the county from outside the county.
several of the bills have a vehicle emissions fee of about $250 per vehicle.
that is the maximum.
some versions are 20 per vehicle.
finally there's a parking fee.
that generally ranges from 50 cents per hour per meter to $2 per space for parking space in a structure.
so you see all these things, a lot of different moving parts.
i think the significant items are the governance and project selection.
the sources of funding, the largest revenue, amount of revenue is raised by the fuel tax.
if you levied a ten cent fuel attacks would probably generate somewhere between 80 and a hundred million a year.
the other options are potentially less.
some right now we can't even quantify, like the parking fee.
et really just depends on where that fee is applied and there's no way reet now to estimate the revenue generated by that.
>> joe, let me ask you a couple of questions.
number one, accountability.
we have 254 counties here in the state of Texas.
so this would be statewide implication, whatever is approved if it gets passed, any of these particular local option bills.
my question is, how do we make sure that what's good for Travis County is good for Travis County regardless if another county, let's say el paso, for example, would be under the same umbrella.
i don't know what is best for el paso but I have a good termination a good feel for what I think the residents of Travis County want.
my concern is how will that be filtered into control, and also accountability as far as what is best for Travis County in either of these options that are selected.
is there any way that we can get to that?
because I'm really concerned about that aspect of it, having someone else to determine something for us that may not be in the best interest for Travis County.
how would that be umbrellaed?
elbellished?
>> right now in corona's bill is the parent bill, and everyone rallies around amending it, it is divided into subchapters by area.
so the north, besides the generally provisions and funding options apply statewide.
the governance, meaning who gets to select the project and all that, is done by a subchapter.
so the north Texas has a subchapter which is very extensive in how their projects get selected and who gets to be on the committee and on and on.
there is a separate subchapter for central Texas.
it is written right now where the county Commissioners court selects the project or is petitions by the advanced transportation district, which is only san antonio.
so as corona's bill is currently written this Commissioners court would select the projects.
however, that chapter, subchapter, stands to be modified, rewritten in the process of the slate of process.
and that is--legislative process.
that is where the volumement of the Commissioners court and the--volume ofment.
legislative court and this team comes in.
i think the testimony that's been drafted for court consideration kind of lays out for the court today kind of what you would eninstruct our team and anyone who testifies on behalf of the Commissioners court the position that you would take going into those negotiations.
i might add those negotiations are going to happen fairly fast.
the bill is up for hearing tomorrow.
>> right.
>> you may see a revision of that bill as soon as Friday.
with that revision or this subchapter on central Texas.
it's very very fast moving process and one that you want all of your team members present and accounted for.
>> my concern, and I don't know if my colleagues share the same concern, but it is for us to not lose control as far as what we determine what is best for the Travis County residence.
that is the governance side of it.
i don't know how we get this per se as far as negotiation process.
but I want to be sure that happens because I believe every county would like to have some control and authority to dictate what is best for them within their county.
so they may be all going in the same direction.
i don't even know what the council of urban counties are saying or the Texas association of counties are suggesting at this time.
i don't know.
but as far as Travis County residents, I'd like to reiterate that I would like to do something in the best interests for us without somebody else trying to dictate what is best for Travis County.
that is my position.
i don't know if that will help you out any.
but that is the which I'm seeing it.
>> we're probably waiting on some direction from the court because you may all have different opinions on I know.
>> I know.
that's mine.
everybody else can speak for themselves.
>> I think the county has always done a very good job of being accountable for the projects and the costs of them, sharing the information with the public, and then getting bye in --buy in from the public.
and I wanted to especially say to joe, thanks for taking care of the projects, for instance, that are funding by capital metro funds for precinct two.
that list has always been turned in on time and complete.
so there has never been any problem at all transferring that money over from capital metro to Travis County to get those projects done.
and so, that, I think, is just one example that I would give, where I think that the county does a much better job of keeping up with all of its projects, all of the information that we have to share with the public, and getting all of that paperwork done ahead, or maybe not ahead of time, but on time as we go along s that we can submit all this paperwork.
and I don't know, I think we could work with municipalities.
does that include the city of Austin?
or is it all the small cities?
>> certainly the city of Austin.
>> mpo and the rma.
i guess trying to get a lot of enput from all of them to put all of the projects on the ballot.
correct?
>> that's correct.
>> okay.
but I don't know that we have ever had any problem with accountability.
you know, we have the people on board, and we get those projects done.
so I don't see why we couldn't do this.
>> I am literally the newest person at the table here talking about transportation planning in central Texas.
but my impression is is things work if not perfectly, at least rather smoothly.
there has been enormous effort in this bill to address governance issues in place governance issues are a huge stumbling blodge.
as joe pointed out, the current draft of this would leave the actual selection of the projects and going before the public with the customer, something that would be done collaboratively, reaching out to other organizations whether mpo, cap metro, cities and so forth.
so I think the structure that is laid out in the bill is one that is very compatible with and consistent with how we have already been doing things.
>> absolutely.
and then the other, we always had more public hearings than are required.
you know.
so we kind of move throughout the precinct making sure we have input from everybody in every part of the county.
we have been down that road and I think we do the job well.
>> my point, though, I want the make sure everybody understands where I'm coming from.
we have the quasi for me of governments that sometimes make decisions for us.
voters look and say well, Commissioner, blah blah blah.
well, I didn't make the decision.
we have quasi government that makemade the decision and yet not accountable to anybody.
that is the road I'm going down s the accountability.
if we have something placed on the ballot, we have look at it and had the public hearings and all these other kinds of things.
but at the end of the day the buck is going to stop with accountability, who going to be accountable.
if it's something that we want to approve and things lick that, I have no problem with that.
but I do know that there are quasi forms of government that are not accountable to anybody.
so that is the point I'm trying to bring up.
>> I'd just like the say first thanks for providing the side by side parsenment our committee has been working on they're for weeks now.
i can assure everyone listening there are meetings going on all over the state and all the counties and cities or at least a great proportion of them trying to be sure for their own purposes, as we are here today, that they are addressing what is important to their structures.
and this has been changing all the time.
i echo the concerns that we sh here.
but what I wantd to say is that I think in the talking points that are outlined for us, that this is going to be moving fast.
>> yes.
>> and we need to be able to have the flexibility that we need cover what our interests are as this process goes on even between now and next Tuesday.
and I do believe that talking points that are outlined will allow our representatives in these meetings to step up and put forward what we think we need to have this bill outcome the way we like to see it.
>> Commissioner Davis, I think your concerns are valid, which is exactly why we have been involved in this process every step of the way to make sure there is accountability that Travis County is is not left out of the mix.
as joe mentioned, we may have a new bill as early as Friday.
we actually may have one today or tomorrow morning, and the hearing is tomorrow at two.
that is not to say that we are not having enput into that process.
we are aggressively involved in that process.
and I think because of Travis County's involvement in that process, there have been major changes to that legislation as it impacts this part of the state.
it's not a perfect system, but we're doing our best.
>> right.
>> okay.
>> thank you.
>> what is that last bullet?
the last bullet mean?
>> I think the intent of that provision is to recognize the fact that there may be a whole variety of mode all tys and options considered in a package that we would take the voters, and that we ought to be willing to work with all kind of transportation providers in order to do that.
but I'll let joe speak to that.
>> that's all it is.
basically the county would determine the projects but not necessarily be the implementer of all the contracts, projects.
for instance, you may decide that you want some type of transit improvement.
well, rather than get in the transit business which is actually prohibited by most of these versions, you would enter local with capital metro and transfer the funds to capital metro for that project.
as you would the rma or city or anyone else that might be eligible to do a project under the act.
so the funding sources, project selection, lie with the court.
but not necessarily the implementation of all the projects.
>> okay.
do I hear a motion to approve the talking points?
>> so move.
>> second.
>> is th intention for us to put together a resolution that contains the talking points?
>> I think at this point probably if you would just select one among you to testify tomorrow and allow that person to use these points as part of their presentation.
>> we think these points are specific enough to have impact?
>> they are intended to have specific impact.
it's generally support for the bill but the bullets say something other than generally support.
they are specific about the governance structure.
>> okay.
motion is seconded the approve the talking points.
discussion?
all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote whompt is interested in .
who is interested in going to legislature tomorrow at two o'clock s what joe wants to know, I think.
>> it would be our hope that we could try to give a member of the court advance notice, try to negotiate something with the committee to see if we could get somebody in and out within some relative time as opposed to just sitting there four hours.
we're going to rely upon our expert consultant the see if he can pull that off.
>> this is a significant turning point for the bill.
judge, if you are available, I would recommend you.
i know have you a standing meeting at 1:30 on Wednesdays, but it may be that by 2:30, the senator watson whorks is on the committee, and corono, could give you a time certain.
>> this is upondownment.
it's two p.m.--upon adjournment.
two p.m.
or upon adjournment.
essentially when the full senate add , --adjourns.
we'll start the hearing.
the senator will lay out the bill and they will begin immediately accepting testimony of those who support the bill and then go to the opposition.
we can try to see if we can find a window certain.
we can, if you have standing meetings or commitments, we can let them know that in advance as well.
>> okay.
put me down.
i'll go.
>> we'll work with you on that, judge.
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> all we have.
>> great.
>> one other item I wantd to bring up, something that I had the staff to mention it to you, dee.
and that was a phone call that I received from representative dukes on house bill 1195, which is relating to municipal solid waste permitting efforts.
again, I would probably want you, I think they are going to be sending you some information.
i don't know if any other court member has that.
>> I do have some information at this time, Commissioner, if you want to hear about it.
the city of Austin has a tract of land out on the east side of town that it is, I think, still evaluating how it wants to use it.
one of the options for it is to use it for a landfill.
i think another option is to use it for this big solar plant they are thinking of buying.
hb 1195 by representative dukes would permit the village of webberville to have some input that that process in terms of having a determination by the village as to whether or not any particular use of that land would have a positive or negative effect upon the health, safety and welfare of the people of the village, and would basically mandate that the Texas commission on environmental quality take into account input from the village of webberville in this regard whamp the bill does is create the opportunity for the village to give input about whatever future uses may be used for that property specifically if it's going to be used for a landfill.
>> I think there's a hearing on that tomorrow at two o'clock.
>> I believe so, tomorrow at house environmental regulation committee.
>> two p.m.
tomorrow, for those interested in attending that.
okey doke.
thank you.
>> yes, sir.
>> make sure all the court members get a copy of that house bill.
>> absolutely.
>> I think I may have the only copy that just was given to me.
>> I'll send out a copy of the bill, with just a believe cover explanation.
>> right.
and what they have lo sent to you recently.
>> yes, sir.
>> thank you.
>> you bet.
thank you, judge.
>> thank you.
move that we recess until 1:30.
>> second?
all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote..
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, March 17, 2009 1:35 PM