Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, January 25, 2011,
Item 21
21, consider and take appropriate action on legislative matters including a, update on legislative activities and b, amends mentsto the priorities, policy positions, and position on other proposals, sections of the Travis County agenda.
should I call up a 1?
>> it's not exactly legislative.
a 1 is comments, a call for comments.
>> we'll call it up separately then.
>> judge Biscoe, Commissioners, good morning.
thank you very much for giving me time to visit with you this morning.
I do want to give just a brief update about legislative activities in general and ask your approval on a couple changes to the priorities and positions on other issues, sections of our legislative agenda.
as everybody knows, the budget bill was released last Tuesday by the house.
it calls for significant cuts across the board in Texas state government, many of which are government to affect Travis County.
our planning and budget office is still working on an analysis for the court but in the meantime we have been able to provide you with a first-run brawn from--breakdown down from the conference of urban counties and also harris county.
>> before you go that deep, I know the budget has been released.
but is the support behind the new budget released, is it substantial enough for us to take strong consideration for what pbo is doing?
in other words, what do they really suggest?
I know we have to be proactive as much as possible instead of reactive, but we are kind of in a posture where we have to be both as far as Travis County is concerned.
I want to see what sentiment or feedback has there been from the capitol as far as the budget and how iron clad is that.
is there any inkeling of how that is going for us to brace ourselves accordingly?
what is the sentiment?
>> Commissioner, I would say that the weeping and wailing and nashing of teeth that you hear both from the capital and from everybody around the state who has business with the capital, is probably the first and pretty consistent response people have had.
you know, this is a cut of over 25 percent of what the state's available revenues are.
so there will be significant impacts on all kinds of programs. Our effort with the base bill, both in the house and the senate senate bill filed yesterday, is going to be to try to look at them, Commissioner, and get you a, get the members of the court a sense of what is at risk, the kinds of programs that are going to be defunded, that are going to have significant cuts, and then at some point probably ask the court for its input about what are the priorities in terms of protecting funding levels as best we can.
truth of the matter, at least now the conversation is we are going to cut $25 billion or somewhere between $15 on$25 --and $25 from what would be the current needs of the state and where the cuts will fall is still being debated.
>> all right, but also in that light of what you are saying, there was an attempt to resolution which of course we supported from this court, as far as looking at the unfunded mandates that have come through and of course the bill introduced by whatever it was, yarl --i can't recall the person in den ton county.
>> representative burt solomon.
>> yes,i was wondering did that get any legs?
we are looking at a combination of things.
I was wondering did that get legs or root?
>> the good news, the unfunded mandates amendment has probably gotten more traction initially this session than it has in the past.
there have been unfunded man date bills and constitutional amendments in the past.
none have passed the legislature.
but I think this one, because representative solomons is considered a very serious member of the legislature, my understanding is that senator kron will be the senate author of the same resolution and he is considered a very serious member of the senate.
so I think there will be a serious discussion about unfunded mandates.
the bad news, this resolution is specifically designed to not take effect until after this session's budget has taken effect because the voters will not have a chance to pass on it until November.
so any hope we have that a policy of not supporting unif you haded mandates is going to--unfunded mandates is going to benefit this go around is probably going to be short lived.
the other good news, I would say govern be --governor spoke to the Texas association of counties this morning and reiterated his commitment to trying to watch out for and reduce unfunded mandates on local governments as much as possible.
so even in the absence of a constitution the amendment to that effect, there's a lot of discussion about reducing unfunded mandates on counties.
we can only hope that during the budget process they recognize that when some of the cuts they are going to make are going to turn into unfunded mandates on county, they will try to draceaddress that.
>> I thank you.
>> I do think the budgets will be focus and what are the programs being funded now that the county uses to help do its job and what other cuts might be made out there that are going to put county programs at risk.
for instance, if you cut funding for the state mental hospital system, is that going to have an impact on jail populations, and how will those two things work together.
that is going to be our effort, so try to get that information to the court.
we will keep the court informed of the documents being produced by the Texas association of counties, conference for urban counties, and the other counties and of course as well as the work of our own planning and budget office.
with specific regard to the legislative agenda, if I can move to item b, we do have a couple of additions we want to make to the legislative agenda.
the first is to add to our priority list one of the policy positions the court has already taken.
this is to clarify the eligibility for what is called the drive a clean machine program.
this is a program that would be most familiar to the members of the court and to the public as the lie wrap program where we true I to either repair or replace vehicles that have bad emissions in order to try to address air quality problems in our community, targeted towards low income people who otherwise might not be able to make the repairs or buy a new car or at least a different car themselves.
the bill that the court has already, the position the court has already approved is to clarify eligibility to make it easier for people to participate in that program.
I?m suggesting now that the court make that one of the priorities so that igr can participate in drafting the legislation, finding a sponsor, and trying to move that bill through the process.
we believe we will be collaborating with the north Texas council of governments and some other groups around the state that are also interested in reducing air emissions through this program, but they have asked Travis County to take the lead of that.
second thing that we are asking the court to do is to add to our positions on other proposals a statement in support of a bill has already been drafted and filed in both the house and senate for constables that would increase the warrant fee from $50 to $75.
this is a bill that the court support, a policy proposal and legislation the court supported last time.
we would ask the court to add that to our positions on other proposals section of the legislative agenda.
and I counsel bruce elfin to answer any questions.
>> do we know how much that will be, how much increase from the 50 to 75 warrants fee, what that would be as far as generated revenue?
>> I do not know that.
>> good morning, I?m bruce elfan precinct 5.
we asked pbo to take a look at updating the revenue estimate for that bill.
clearly it's going to generate upwards of a quarter of a million for warrants executed by Travis County law enforcement.
>> I just have one more question and I?ll shut up.
I want to go back to what you left off of, deece.
>> yes.
>> that is the jail population.
in the earlier discussion we had this morning, talking about so bright ty sobriety center, the question did come up as far as mentally challenged folks.
my question, I think there is a bill that has been proposed, if I?m incorrect, please correct me that actually is suggesting that some of the expenses being borne by counties throughout state, would overset the jail population and the expense of housing inmates in our jails, is to look at a tent city type of situation.
I?m just wondering, is that particular bill, has that grabbed any support or what?
because it is kind of interrelated to what we are discussing here, the impact of budget, how it's going to affect us as far as the budget is concerned.
I?m hearing that may be something that may come down the pike as far as a tent city type situation as far as housing inmates in tents instead of in the jail.
>> Commissioner Davis, I?m not aware of that bill.
I see most bills coming by as their filed.
any that I flag for the county, I try to assign to the sheriff or to the auditor or whatever to research the bill for us.
but I have not seen that bill.
I will take a look at let you know if something--
>> please.
>> I think there are two--
>> could it possibly be related to the defunding of the boot camp out of harris county?
which is a tent.
>> could be.
>> we can take a look at that.
>> I think so.
>> I do know they plan to defund the boot camp in harris county or the state money that was going to that camp.
I don't know about the tent city.
bruce just mentioned had e might have heard something from the san antonio paper.
>> there was an article in the last week or two, a local representative from san antonio looking at filing a bill to do what are you speaking of, to allow counties to erect tents.
>> let's see if we can get that article.
>> to the hb 1 defunding of the harris county project.
>> I didn't know it would impact us.
just want to put it on the radar screen.
>> I appreciate that Commissioner.
we'll look for that article and get it to you and see if the bill has been filed.
I think the two big stressors on jail population management are going to be what happens with mental health funding at the state level.
>> one of them.
>> that is part of a very intricate system of local community delivery of services, the criminal justice system and the state's mental health infrastructure.
then the second area that we just don't quite know what to make of yet is the him congratulations--immigration.
depending on what type of action the legislature takes with respect to immigration, there could be consequences in terms of having to detain more people in our jails or having to detain them for longer periods in order to allow immigration and customs enforcement to verify status.
we are now doing nal signatures of all the im--analysis of all the immigration laws that have been filed and trying to get a handle of what impacts they could have on the account.
>> one of the impacts is that we would be carrying out an unfunded man date.
and also a duty that is not a county duty.
it's a federal duty.
>> absolutely, Commissioner.
>> can we also giver them back a fiscal note to say the county taxpayers are paying for a job that the feds need to be doing?
>> as a matter of fact, the Texas association of counties has been asked by the legislative budget board to try to municipal some infrom you counties and try to get those numbers.
I know we are one of the counties that pac has asked to help with that.
we're trying to get some information together.
>> I think it will be real important the give them that feedback.
>> absolutely.
like you say, that is going to be a big stressor on the county government.
>> the community justice council is contemplating a task force do just that on a running tabulation basis through the legislative session with the assistance of deece and max.
>> good news on that front, the governor's representative this morning indicated their approach would be more of a permissive rather than mandatory approach which you see in some of the house bills.
that was certainly encouraging.
>> okay.
I?d like to talk to you more about that then.
>> so c will ask counties to keep you what kind of fiscal impact various legislation will have on cities and counties?
>> yes, sir.
sometimes the lbb, which prepares budget estimates or fiscal impact notes for the legislature, directly asks counties to do those impacts including Travis County.
sometimes they ask pac or cuc to poll their members somehow.
we are seeing both of those.
>> okay.
any other questions regarding the legislation to increase the warrant fee from $50 to $75?
last time that bill made it how far?
the legislature?
>> passed the house and bottled up in the senate.
>> move that we support it this session.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
any other specific legislation?
>> I wantd to ask about putting the drive the clean machine legislation on the priorities list.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion?
that comes from--
>> noel and our tnr people.
>> all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> see you next week.
>> thank you.
>> that is it.
okay.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, January, 2011 2:19 PM
