Travis County Commissioners Court

Tuesday, March 1, 2011,
Item 22

>> 22 is to consider and take appropriate action on legislative matters including -- let's vote on them, miss porter.
move approval of those 15.

>> second.

>> discussion?
all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
I'm flood you're on your toes there.
22 is to consider and take appropriate action on matters including a update on legislative activities.
b, adoption of a resolution in support of the travis count healthcare district, dba central health proposal relating to property, facilities and equipment, c, regional cuts to 911 funding through capcog and implications for Travis County, d, house bill 990 relating to certain homestead preservation reinvestment zones, and e, additions to the priorities, policy positions, and the positions on other proposals sections of the Travis County legislative agenda.
mr. Eckstein?

>> good morning, it's my pleasure to be here this morning.
because we have such a full docket I try to keep my interdoesn'tly comments very briefly.
we'll start off with my quote from the day with senator john whit mire with whom I was in a meeting this morning who speaking of the budget situation said this: "many of you have been around for a long time, but it's worse than anyone could think it is." that was his comment about the budget cal difficulty and the political difficulty to address that in education, health and human services, the very critical law and order and public safety services the county provide in the budget.
we've had in mind the committees continue their hearings on the budget.
they are finishing their original review of the budget probably within the next week or so in the house and senate and will begin marking up the budget.
what we hear is that we'll be very difficult for any additional money other than what's already locked into or what's already allocated to each of those articles to be moved into the articles, particularly those that apply to article 5 which is public safety and to some of the articles that apply to the regulatory agencies that we deal with so much.
so it's going to be a very tough sex in front of us.
by hope that voters understand that.
we will keep the court as informed about that as of the imcases of that.
we'll have a briefing today on one of the issues related to capcog and 911 service as one of our agenda items. This week in committees we have the warranty increase that court has expressed its support for.
it's up in the criminal justice committee in the house today.
we will be going over after this in regard to dropping a card off that.
the community resources is going to be considering issues related to ground water management.
tomorrow the house committee will be taking up all the immigration related division which could have an impact on our law enforcement part of the county and the senate i.g.r.
committee is going to take up the solar bills.
the court has taken a position in favor of restricting the ability of homeownerrer ace association to ban the installation of solar panels.
those will be heard in the senate tomorrow.

>> of those bills that we did support, has that proper support documentation gotten to the persons that need to look at that before it moves forward?

>> we have taken to the authors of the three bills set aside by senators jackson, west and wentworth, we have taken to them copies of the resolution passed by the commission ers court.
we're going to visit the members of the committee this afternoon and drop off copies of that resolution today in anticipation of tomorrow's hearing.
we will be getting the word out from Travis County Commissioners court that we do support that legislation.

>> okay.
thank you.

>> with that in mind, let me bring up the various items under the overall discussion here.
the first one is the central health healthcare district resolution.
they are working on legislation.
a draft was put in the backup information that you had, they are working on legislation regarding a realignment of their powers and the oversight that Commissioners court plays in that role.
stacy wilson from central health is here.
I might call her up here in case there's any questions the court has for that.
you do have a resolution in front of you, and there were some questions about the resolution that were raised by the auditor's office.
and so the auditor's office and central health have worked on some new language.
and you do have that language.
we have copies of that language here for you today.
it really just makes a change and deleads a reference to central health having its own -- having an unique set of control and accounting procedures.
and so at the auditor's suggestion we have taken that out of the thing.
let us go ahead and pass that language out to you.

>> this is a simple thing.
because you set the tax rate for the health district and you set their budget, they are a component unit of Travis County's books.
and so when we publish our financial statements, there's our sitting there right next to ours.
so we have to let's say as your chief financial officer I'm not willing to give away our right to have accounting standards internal controls because they will appear in the county's financial statements.
it's just that simple.

>> so for auditing purposes more than anything else?

>> yes.
what accounting rules have said is that if the governing body controls, meaning budget or who's on the board, there's a group of criteria, then really that is a component unit of that government.
and their financial statements need to be put together so that voter can look at it and say, these are decisions.
like they look and say, you all set the tax rate.
so as I said, if they had an elected board and they were not part of our financial statements, I think that would be your decision.
but since they are a part of our financial statements, we have an obligation to make sure that we're asked questions, the auditors look at it.
but we did make changes there.
hello.

>> what new language?

>> in the third and fourths are itation, the original -- rest itation, the original materials each of those ended with a phrase "and accounting and control procedures,." that was in the third and fourth recitation of the draft language you received last week.
under the new language we're proposing to you today, those phrases have been taken out of the third and fourth recitation out of the draft language.

>> in order to make it an accurate statement.
it's not a policy.

>> a little bit of a clarification.

>> and stacy wilson from the health district is here to describe the goals of the education and brief that aspect of it.

>> I'm stacy wilson, director of government affairs for central health.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and I appreciate your considering this resolution.
central health as you will recall in December of 2000 -- what year is this?
this is bad.
a couple of years ago, 2006, the court delegated two central health purchasing authority.
and so one of the things that is unclear with the local bill that we had several years ago was whether or not that purchasing authority included the purchase -- the right to purchase and do other transactions regarding property facilities equipment, those types of things.
so in order to clarify that we have propose add local bill which senator watson has agreed to carry on the senate side.
we are working with representative naystaff's office to help it on the clarify that central health has the authority to do basic transient as with regard to facilities -- transactions with regard to facilities, real estate and equipment without having to come to the Commissioners for each transaction.
we are required to post any of those transient abc news,.
the board would have to comply with that, comply with the open meetings act and give the public at least 72 hours of any kind of transaction.
you retain the ultimate authority as the auditors pointed out.
you approve our budget and our tax rate.
and the line items relating to leases, real estate purchases, equipment, are all set out in our budget.
and that process starts sooner than anybody -- probably in June and then culminates in your approval in September.
so we think again there's plenty of public notice about those proposed kind of transactions.
and hopefully it would help us streamline the process of doing the operations on the central health side with putting hopefully the court at the right level of approving the overall policy without having to get into the transactional muck, if you will, of what central health does all the time.
and I'm happy to answer any questions.

>> I have a couple of.

>> yes, sir.

>> and my question is that during the last budget cycle, we experienced a lot of testimony prior to the budget cycle and prior to the court adopting, approving the budget, as an example, we had a lot of community input in opposition to the new facility that's been erected by the healthcare district.
of course, my concern is that especially under the real estate and acquisition of real estate and property, my concern is that if you forego coming to the Commissioners court, especially when there is a lot of public input that's being required for us to hear, will that go away?
and all that I knew about what was going on with your new facility is that the public actually came to the Commissioners court and appeared before the Commissioners court and made a lot of serious testimony.
I don't want to see any input that has been curtailed or reduced or done away with by the community whom we represent.

>> sure.

>> as an elected body.

>> sure.
so I have a problem with this particular resolution on that regard.
right now we look at your budget.
we approve your budget.
we approve the tax rate.
and we also do another thing, we appoint members to your board.

>> yes, sir.
which is very important.
but also that fourth element is that real estate acquisition and things like that.
and so it's hard for me to support this particular portion of it because of the fact that I want to have continued input into the process where they can come to the Commissioner's court and say, this is not a good idea, this is not this or this is not that.
there has to be 100% community participation in any real estate acquisition.
I don't care who's doing it.
and I want to make sure that happens.
part of the complaints was that when you held your meetings and things like that from the community that you really didn't have an ear for the concerns that the community was raising.
and that was part of what I heard during this process.
so again, and when we look at this creating this hospital district, those were some things that we wanted to hold in place whereby there would be a checks and balances on this particular situation.
and I don't want to see any further erosion of those checks and balances.
in other words, what would be next?
will it be that we won't be able to appoint or deal with the tax rate?
you're taking that from us?
and all these other kind of things.
and so it's bothersome for me to erode a checks and balances situation a police oversight situation with the Commissioners court feels a part in this process as far as your particular hospital district is concerned.

>> well, I appreciate your concerns, Commissioner.
I think that public still has the ability to come speak to the Commissioners court during citizens communication on every issue every Tuesday?
I understand that.
I'm not knocking that.

>> right.

>> the point is what I'm knocking is that -- and this is alleged because I wasn't there -- but as far as what I heard on those allegations were that you weren't -- the community wasn't accepted favorably before some of your meetings.
I don't know what the deal is on that, but I do know when they did come in before the Commissioners court.
I did hear exactly what they had to say.
and I did hear what you had to say.
so I'm having some trouble with that.
I do want to again reduce the urgency of having community input at the high level that it should be regarded as.

>> may I speak to that?
I believe that you're speaking of the breaker lane clinic which is in precinct two.
I too was involved in many of the discussions with the neighbors with regard to feelings of not having been included early on in the process.
I agree that healthcare district, perhaps in its naive take under that circumstance, backed into discussions with the neighbors later than was optimal.
but once they did engage with neighbors, there were many concessions made.
there was a deep listening by the healthcare district -- too late but not too little.
and I think that a great deal was learned by the healthcare district in that experience.
my understanding from the administration is that there is now a robust public input process.
I think that with the passage of this bill we would still have the oversight of being able to remove board members if they do not make good on their example of more robust public input which they achieved in breaker lane clinic and that I expect that they will continue in future projects.
we also have the oversight of refusion their tax rate if they also don't make good on that practice and promise.
I do have some concerns with the wording of the legislation that's before us.
I think that it can be improved.
my understanding is administration is interested in working -- administration and the board is interested in working with representative nays t at in regard to finding public criteria so we can be assured that there will be notice, robust public input, and a finding of appropriateness that the real estate transaction is for the improved health outcome of our residents.
that it is related to improv ing the health outcome of our residents.
so in regards to that, perhaps would it be appropriate to wait until that language is vetted with representative naystat and bring the legislation back?

>> the only issue we have with that, Commissioner is the bill filing deadline is next Friday.
so we have a real urgency to move forward.

>> Commissioner, I hear what you're saying the and even better late than never.
but my concern is the never end of this because of the fact that if the community had not come up and spoke on this particular issue, on acquisition of real estate and a whole lot of things, I never would have known anything about it per se.
we did get some calls per se on this particular, but I do not want that input eroded.
no one shape form or fashion.
especially when you come to acquisition of right-of-way.
I just think this is another safeguard measure that we have in place to ensure that these things don't occur in the future.
and of course, it appears that it's an erosion of the authority of the Commissioners court, in my opinion, whereby if persooh#ncmnot accept whatk2e -- we don't want that to happen.
it need to be upfront, in front, and standing in front as the process goes by.
and again, that opportunist definitely open to the Travis County Commissioners court.
I'd like for it to stay in place as it.
and I don't want any further erosion on what we have here before now.

>> if I can make a suggestion, Commissioner, you did point out that there is at least some conversation going on about whether the language would be tweaked.
the resolution that court has in front of it today expresses support fortresslusion -- for the draft of the bill that is also included in the backup today.
so I would suggest that if there is any change to the language of the bill then the resolution will already be vowed or non-jermaine to whatever the changes -- language is.
suggest that I bring this back to the court next week with either new draft language for the bill, maybe draft language fortresslusion that expresses support for the concept without necessarily having to express support in all the details of the legislation or express support for a particular language of the bill?
as you know, the court has taken the position this session of not -- not locking itself into particular language of bills but rather locking into policy goals it wants to accomplish through legislation.
so maybe we can work with stacy on trying to refine either the resolution or the language and report back to the court next week.

>> and just to point out, the last paragraph of the resolution talks about supporting the goals expressed in the draft bill, it doesn't expressly support the draft bill.
it talks about the goals.
so hopefully we have done that in the resolution, in the last piece of the resolution.

>> well, if we can get as much done as possible before next Tuesday and just bring it back.
the deadline is next Friday.
we may as well have a final shot at the final language.

>> thank you for your consideration.
I appreciate it.

>> thank you for your participation.

>> thank you.

>> last week when planning budget presented its announcements to the Commissioners court of the impact of budget cuts, one of the areas they did talk about was public safety and particular cuts to the regional 911 service.
we have at the court's request we are here with some followup information from that.
and I think somebody from capcog is here and maybe brad beer den from the county just to give the court a beef overview of 911 service and particularly our effort to make sure that we don't have any real suffering in the quality of the service even given cutbacks that the ladies and gentlemen is asking us to make.
so let me at this point turn it over to them and let them make a brief presentation to the court.

>> we have the queen of capcog with us.
miss vort, please come forward.

>> trying tousling down into the chair but we still -- trying to slink down into the chair but we still saw her.

>> good morning.

>> it may be appropriate judge if it's okay in Commissioners court to go ahead and allow betty to give an intro as to why we're here and what is the reason why we're here in regard to the budget cuts themselves and the impact it's having on capcog and why we're having the discussion today.

>> judge, Commissioners, I'll give you kind of the reader's digest version and then you can ask me questions.
I think we all know that state agencies were asked in this current biennium to make cuts.
and so the first reduction was a request for 5%.
the state agency that runs 911, commission of

>> [one moment please for change in captioners]

>> but my understanding was that they felt like they could make a compelling case to come back in with a contingency rider on appropriations to get that.
and so that left us admin and network and network is where we pay for the trunks and the circuits and the equipment maintenance and the database and the mapping and all those other things so what we've effectively done is proposed to take money out of our admin budget, 230,000, our equipment money is gone, about 780,000 and we've got 4 1/2 million we have to make up out of program, which is the network strategy.
3 million of that was things we felt like we could handle but we get down to the last 1.4 million and that's brother we're actually having to look at closing some 911 centers.
and we may have to reduce a little bit what we're putting out for mapping maintenance, but not to the point where I think it's going to cause a degradation in services.
ironically and of course Huber and judge Biscoe know this, we've been having some discussions within the cog board about the psaps that have very low volume of calls and whether we need to continue to fund those anyway, and so it's possible that closing a few of these psaps could be relatively painless.
the impact that each of the counties is going to have to look at if they're having psaps that are closing is the change in call volume that the county would absorb and any contractual relationship you might want to have with that city.
our executive committee working group is meeting tomorrow morning at 8:30 and that's when we're really going to talk about closing the p saps.
we actually have three counties right now that are trying to do psaps consolidations, burnet and hays and bastrop is actually looking at it.
so that would solve all our problems. The problem is that they can't have that done by September 1 when this budget hits.
the three psaps that likely would be closed in Travis County if we close the eight we're proposing would be lago vista, West Lake Hills and Lakeway and those two only have two calls per day, so I'm not sure how much that impacts you-all if you take those causes, but -- and I believe that they're secondary psaps anyway.
so I'll stop there and see if you have questions.

>> what are the suggestions, I guess, as far as the shortfalls we run -- how are we going to direct those shortfalls?
I heard what you said, but the timeline is for some of the counties you said coming in September 1 was the deadline on some of these things, but then how much time after September 1 do we have to make some of the adjustments?
because of course we're going to have to adjust with these type of cutbacks and things like that.
my question is, how do you strategize, in fact, for the overall -- as far as the overall impact on the adjustment that need to be made with the cutbacks?

>> mr. Davis, it's not up to us.

>> I understand, but I'm saying as far as what you're bringing to Travis County.
in other words in other words, I hear what you're saying but what can we do all together because this is cap -- we have a role in that.

>> okay.
well, you know, we're working very hard with some of the legislators to understand that the 911 is a dedicated fund source, and that the citizens have already paid for these services.

>> yeah, exactly.

>> everyone paid 50 cents on either their land line or their wireless bill, and we have 160 million accumulated in a fund over at the state.
we don't need that money.
we just need the revenue that we generate over, you know, the biennium and we can operate a really good program like that, and we can even do with some reduction but not that much.
and we've been working with a state agency on this.
we've suggested to them, you know, that part of their job is to make sure that legislators understand the impact on service if they make these decisions.
there's somebody sitting at the legislative budget board that sends a letter out to the state agencies and say thou shalt do this.
it doesn't mean that the state agencies won't come back and say describe the impact.
in the state -- I chair for all 24 cogs on 911 and one of them will not just lose equipment replacement but even any ability to maintain their equipment.
so some of them will be hurt much more severely, because if you remember, 911, our revenues are population-based and because we're a bigger region, we tend to have more revenues of some of the councils of government that are very sparsely populated.
so we're collectively working very hard to make some of the legislators understand that, you know, you could be -- they could be driving along and suddenly be in a part of the state where the maps aren't being maintained to find them if they call 911 on their wireless phone.

>> yeah.

>> if I may just add here, betty and I have been dealing with this -- the dedicate -- I'm going to try not to get started on my little soapbox, but she is doing what she needs to do in regards to the request to cut, but I'm just going to speak on our behalf as far as Travis County but also all the other cogs, and that is we have really developed a strong working relationship with capcog and with betty and all of her staff and they do a wonderful job, I think, for all of our community.
and so I think it's time for us to go to bat again.
I haven't been that active.
betty will tell you I've had other things I've had to do but I am ready to go to bat again in regards to this.
I wanted all of us to get that dedicated fund resolved instead of it just being something that balanced the state budget.
it's $160 million, so to me it's an insult to come back to betty and her staff and say, you know, you've got to cut $5 million when it's a dedicated fund.
I mean, look at everybody.
I've got two -- I've got a blackberry and a cell phone on me right now, and so it's not a lack of funding.
it's a dedicated fund.
the other one is the closing of the psaps.
betty is right, we could probably do some consolidations but give us a right to look at that consolidation.
I hate to give up anything -- if you talk to those folks -- I'll let paul talk about the operational impact but I'll speak on cap -- giving up on 911, when we've come so far and we know there's not a limit on our funding, to me I think it's something we need to fight for.
she mentioned the psaps.
I would, you know, personally not like to close any psap, especially Pflugerville, because in our homeland security plan that is our backup, Travis County dispatch, that is our backup site.
you didn't mention Pflugerville but I think they're on the list.
the recommendation would be lago and west lake and Lakeway.
I think you're looking at it now.

>> yeah.

>> so I'm just encouraging especially judge Biscoe and Commissioner Huber, and I'll be more than happy to speak anywhere and anyplace in regards to where we've come from and where we have and not lose any ground in regards to that.
I'll let paul talk about the operational --

>> I'm paul knight.
I'm responsible for floor operations for the county and ctek.
and like danny mentioned, the impact on our operation for the three psaps that you mentioned, lago, west lake and Lakeway, would be manageable from a call volume standpoint.
the thing that worries me the moist, it's not the volume of calls, it's the potential stepback in time where a call comes to a psap and the equipment is not available to transfer the call, address and name information, from one point to another.
and potentially we could have to pick up a phone and then transfer our call old style out to a police department, and that's a giant big step back in time.
it makes me nervous -- all these municipalities have fought to baseball answer acenters.

>> I'd like to speak for Pflugerville.
Pflugerville takes 36 calls a day on average.
and you have the Pflugerville police department and you have the Travis County sheriff's department doing it around Pflugerville and you have apd servicing fingers that lays up around Pflugerville as well.
without this kind of coordinated system, you don't have that kind of leveraged response in an area that is very, very much in need of that kind of leveraged response.

>> and we're not proposing to close Pflugerville.
we're looking at the first eight primarily, and we think we'll be fine if we only closed those eight and I'm hoping we can figure out a way where we can close less than those eight, but that's the discussion that the board members will have to have tomorrow morning, because we have a little bit of give and take, but somebody is going to be unhappy.

>> uh-huh.

>> what's the likelihood of the commission reducing the ask and saying, we don't need

>> [inaudible] less than five.
are they on thattistic about that happening or do they think that probably the legislature will require them to get what they've asked for?

>> well, the -- it's encouraging -- we have some -- a couple of new people on ctek as far as Commissioners.
we have -- the agency has a new chair, bill buck holts who runs a district down in bexar county, and is taking a much more aggressive approach on these issues than the past chir of ccec.
we have council member mitch fuller from Cedar Park who's been not only active but he's been to one meeting and he's already been up to the hearings testifying, so that's a good thing.
we have several things we're looking at.
this agency has been going through sunset, and we know that center hager, also from our region, will be one of the joint sponsors of the bill for that agency and we're proposing some language that could change how some of the revenues get redirected.
you may remember, some of you, who have been involved with the cog for a while, that when the cogs first started doing number one the revenue came directly to us, and at some point the legislature decided they were going to run it up through them.
so we're hoping that possibly some of that revenue could be redirected back directly to the council government.
we also know that the budget estimate that the comptroller generated for this agency is 37 million short, due to some new formula that was used by the comptroller, and I'm not an expert in that area, so I don't want to be throwing anybody under the bus, but we have reason to believe that there's revenue there that, you know -- that we should be considered for, and whether that gets introduced as a contingency rider, which is how they do it, you know, that's legislative strategy that we need to be discussing also.
also, we need to be sure and talk to the folks from our region that either sit on house appropriations or on senate finance and make sure that they work with us on this.
and I had my first meeting along those lines yesterday and met with representative schwartzner, who is on appropriations.
talked to him about it and he felt like we had a strong case for 911.
so we're working it from every angle.

>> thank you.

>> is there any type of language -- I'm thinking about a documentation that could serve all purposes.
in other words, if you are talking to different individuals, danny -- all of you-all, talk to different individuals up at the state legislature, is there a common language, letter or document that could be shared with each one of them so there won't be much variation in what you're requesting, so everyone would basically see the same thing and maybe react accordingly in this particular issue?

>> we can create something.
maybe one-pager with --

>> yeah, a one-page -- something that I think will be generic whereby it will take care and send the same -- similar message, a consistent message, to the person that makes the decisions.
and I don't know if that's been -- and I guess the point now -- I guess my question is, the timeliness of the timeline that we have to deal with this is for getting that to the legislature accordingly.
how much time do we have?
I've heard a couple of times that time is of the essence.
how much time do we have if the course decides to support a letter or documentation to address the concerns?
anybody answer that?

>> I took my eye off the ball for just a second --

>> you were talking about timing.
in other words, when can you on ewhen can you -- when can you make your case about appropriations.
we've got a long time to still do that.

>> okay.

>> the way it works is the -- like house appropriations has subcommittees that deal with different parts of the budget, and so we're just now at the point where the subcommittees have finished meeting.

>> okay.
okay.
so --

>> what are the other ones doing?

>> they're sending their elected officials in to testify when there's a hearing on this issue.
we know that -- judge alred from the panhandle cog is coming in.
we have a senate hearing on this issue on Monday.

>> you should ask them to send something in writing, too.

>> yeah, consistency, uniformity --

>> you've got how many, 24?

>> some uniformity.

>> yeah, I mean, I --

>> 24 jurisdictions, I'd have -- I'd have as many of the elected bodies send a written communication as possible.

>> could we get a letter for this afternoon, danny?
could we get a letter of support for -- or -- not support but I suppose a letter asking that this dedicated fund not be swept for any purpose other than the provision of 911 services?

>> well, now, let me clarify.
they're not sweeping the money.
it sits there.
it's just used to balance the budget.
so they're not using it for another purpose.
they're just not appropriating it.

>> I see.
they're leaving it in the -- in the reserve.

>> uh-huh.

>> but I think to have impact you have to indicate harmful effects, right?

>> yes, sir.

>> so seems to me that the communication should really focus on harmful impact.

>> uh-huh.

>> otherwise my guess is that it will simply be filed away like all the other letters that they receive.
anything else on this item?

>> I just have one question, these numbers are not large on what we're talking ten calls transferred to ctek.
but is there a threshold number of incremental calls that cause an increase in cost at ctek?

>> staffing levels for peak periods during the day would be the only concern that I would have.
we don't use the -- we wouldn't use the cad system for these smaller municipalities, so it wouldn't have a direct impact on ctek funding because it's on a call -- per call basis.

>> yeah, as far as my world, the formulas go into effect when you add staff and add cad stations so then it would have impact for me.
but again, from an operational, judge, that's where you're coming from, that we perhaps want to look at it from an operational standpoint, though, as far as Lakeway.
if I'm Lakeway and then I'm no longer going to answer the call for pd and I have to transfer the call, that means something.
and of course I never look in my world as far as what's happening today.
I look at what is my growth potential for tomorrow.
and so in regards to the shutting down of psaps, they may only have two calls today -- I think there's ten for Lakeway, if I remember.
they may only have two today but with the growth patterns if it happens to go back again all of a sudden here we are and then we've already ordered the equipment.
so to me it's something that I'm more concerned about the future.
I'm concerned about some of the operational delays now that they're going to take place.
but overall the impact is going to be small right now, because I think the -- the lago and west lake are secondary psaps, but the primary one is the one you have to look at because they have some impact.

>> well, judge, if it's appropriate, I'd second the motion, I think on what you were basically trying to get together.
I know the communications thing, as I brought up earlier, is a good vehicle, but then again the impacts on what is the harm that it's causing is a different issue.
but all inclusive as far as communicating that.
I guess my question is of the particular jurisdictions, can we suggest that they send a similar letter, just what we can do and just go forward with what we're going forward it as far as producing some communique to the person that's making the decision?
so is that in the form of a motion, judge, basically?

>> I would suggesting we take a week to put together a carefully worded document that the court can review.

>> okeydokey.

>> so when we approve it we'll know what the wording exactly is.
that will give the subcommittee, capcog a chance to meet tomorrow and telephone calls to some of the other cogs --

>> it still will capture, though, the harmful phase of what we're talking about here.

>> right.

>> I have no problem with that.
let's do it, and I think we'll get something -- again, we don't really know what the other jurisdictions are doing, but if they maybe follow our lead it would be significant.

>> and just have this item brought back next week.

>> sure.

>> is that okay?

>> uh-huh.

>> we know you like to visit with us, but if you send that document you're welcome to come with it or not.

>> let me add that the cogs had a -- the corporation for Texas regionalism that does legislative advocacy for us, they're a separate organization that does that, and they have developed some language already to explain some of these issues they impact.

>> do you want to give that to mr. Eckstein there?

>> yes.

>> there is one other thing I want to request, if there happens to be hearings or things that come up that I be allowed to speak at those in regards to Travis County.

>> absolutely, because I think you have the history.
this is another new issue and it's really gotten trampled on for many years, so I think that you have enough history to kind of catch them up on it.

>> we have a hearing next week?

>> Monday.

>> yes, I have to go back and check but I think there's a senate finance hearing on this issue on Monday.
it was postponed.
it was a couple weeks ago and they had to reschedule it.

>> we don't want to tell you what to say, but sometimes guidance helps a little bit.

>> [laughter]

>> I've been there before.
the very first time I spoke, they came up to me and said, we've never had anybody speak that long.

>> [laughter]

>> they asked a bunch of questions and -- they started asking me a bunch of questions and I was there for 20 --

>> your two minutes are up.

>> let's share that document with mr. Haver next week, but we'll have this back on the agenda next week, okay?
thanks for coming.

>> thank you.

>> de?

>> the next item is related to homestead -- let me just introduce the topic by saying in 2005 state representative eddie rodriguez passed a bill that was intended at least to try to address affordable housing issues in parts of his district and parts of east Austin, but what the bill basically did was give a series of tools to mostly the city of Austin but also to any nonprofits that it partnered with in doing this in order to create more affordable housing in parts of eastern Travis County.
included among those strategies was inclusion of a homestead, which was in the oh preservation district, which was in the form of a tif, and what we would do is set aside baseline properties, and as those properties increased we would set aside some of that money for improvements within that community and in order -- in some cases, to help finance the activities of a land bank and a land trust that were also part of the tools that were set aside.
as originally conceived, the tif portion of the thing called for a partnership between the city of Austin and Travis County, and, in fact, required that as part of how the tif would work.
the terms of that were a little -- what I would call unfavorable to Travis County in that Travis County was essentially a silent partner in the venture.
the city of Austin would create the tif, there would be a rate set, Travis County would have to match that rate dollar for dollar and in addition the composition of the governing board for the homestead preservation district was slightly slanted towards city of Austin people.
because of concerns with that imbalance in this partnership, the Commissioners court last session supported legislation by representative rodriguez that was intended to equalize out that balance, and the legislation made two very important changes from the perspective of Travis County.
it improved Travis County's membership standing on the governing board of the tif, and secondly had a provision in it that said that Travis County's contribution to the tif would be the same percentage as the city of Austin's contribution to the tif but not the same dollar amount.
what this really reflected was the fact that Travis County ever already offered a homestead exemption that was significancely higher than anything offered by the city of Austin, two people in that community, and already had less tax revenues than it could have due to the homestead exemption.
and the city agreed with us eventually that the percentage contribution ought to be equal rather than the dollar contribution be equal.
so the bill that passed last session actually improved Travis County's relationship and status within the homestead preservation district.
it was vetoed by governor perry for other reasons.
now representative rodriguez has refiled that legislation, and we just wanted to bring that before the court today at the request of one of the Commissioners.

>> one of the questions I have is from last time we went out to have a meeting with folks who were -- lived in that area, and it was -- we came to a consensus that people in Texas were very unfamiliar with land banks.
they were very unfamiliar with some of the these other things that were involved, and I thought an agreement was made that before you approach this legislation again, that an education process would take place where you explain those terms and how those worked to the residents of that area.
has that taken place?

>> not that I know of, and my sense is that the city of Austin has not tried to move forward with this, I think because of the budget challenges it was facing over the last couple years, and so I do not believe that that sort of public outreach, public education program, you're asking about, Commissioner, has occurred.

>> and the other thing was that we were at the point of having a -- a meeting in the community with a -- a house that was in that district to use as an example of how all of this would work, and work out the details of the taxes and how it would still be preserved for future generations of those residents.
and then the meeting was cancelled by the city.
I never heard from them again, and that was one of the important steps that I thought needed to take place so that you can information people in the area that's going to be affected in a very positive way.

>> in a sense to give people a case study of how it worked --

>> absolutely, how it works and how it would affect you and your future generations in that -- in that area.
that didn't take place either.
and so I find it difficult to go through this exercise again if, you know, we're still going to meet the same barriers there that were there last time.
so....

>> barriers are part of this concern, not only Commissioner, to you, but it's been an ongoing issue in this particular area for a long time.
in July of 2009, in fact, July 8 of 2009, mayor lee leafing well, council member chris reilly, council member mike martinez, eddie rodriguez, representative eddie rodriguez, myself and staff, leroy nellie and blane attended a meeting, and we laid out at that time the hardship impact it would pose to Travis County by this particular concept.
at this time I would like staff, leroy nellie and blane, to, with the accounting office -- leroy nellie with pbo, to maybe, if they possibly can, go through some of this -- especially when we go to section 2, and I guess also section 373-a, part 155 b as amended.
how does this impact Travis County as far as increment in the tax increment funding as far as Travis County contributing?
could you give me some overall -- can you-all -- can somebody give me some overall background and bring us up to speed so the public can understand exactly what's going on here?

>> let me let blane just give an overview on the amount of the total general fund budget that's represented by property tax.

>> okeydoke.
thank you.

>> yes, blane keith, auditor's office.
the point I made in that meeting in 2009 was how much Travis County depends on property taxes and how if you change that, you affect us quite a lot.
in the 2009 budget the net current property taxes made up 80% of the new funding for that year, and, in fact, it's running since then, and the 2010 budget was 82% and the 2011 budget it's 83%.
so current property taxes are -- mean quite a lot to us, and that needs to be kept in mind when these kinds of bills come through, because that's just about the main source of revenue that the state gives us.
the city has quite a bit of others.
I looked up their '11 budget and I think it makes up 37.8% of their general revenue funds.
they have transfer utility funds, of course they have sales tax.
so we depend much more heavily, relatively, in fact, absolutely, in the general fund on the current property tax.
so that sort of is the framework for this discussion.
and if you start messing with property taxes it can affect us.

>> and if I recall, blane, and you-all correct me if I'm wrong in what I'm stating.
in that meeting on July 8, 2009, after the presentation was made by you and of course leroy nellie with pbo on the long-range and short range impact on the budget, the general fund budget that we need to operate on here in Travis County, the elected officials that were there, mayor lee leffingwell, mike martinez and also chris reilly, along with representative eddie rodriguez, did not -- were not aware of the financial hardship that this would cause in full to Travis County and at that point so they could move forward without Travis County's participation.
that's what I heard.
and of course I assumed that this was still going to hold true to the person that indicated that.
they didn't know there was that much harm to us, but we told them it was.
and of course you just stated even this year, in 2011, for our fiscal budget, 83% of our revenue basically comes through property taxes.
and of course I'm not going to cut anyone off, but what kind -- that's the impact right now.
in other words, what you just laid out.
that's a significant impact.
and leroy, do you have anything you wanted to add?

>> my recollection from that meeting was that any future legislation would eliminate Travis County's participation in the proposed bill.

>> exactly.

>> coming both from representative rodriguez and the mayor and councilmen.
at that meeting I kind of laid out a projection based on the baseline in that preservation -- district, and we did, we did remind the city if they wanted homestead preservation, just elect to do as Travis County did and give a 20% homestead preservation exemption.
as you know, we're giving over $15 million a year in that 20%.
the city is giving zero, not smaller but zero.
and if they want to step up and do a homestead preservation, do it for the entire city.
anyway, I did in that presentation go over the projected amounts that would be involved in the tif, and just so we're clear about what the tif does, the tif does not decrease the amount of overall money we get.
it essentially increases your effective tax rate.
and in that presentation on year 10 --

>> yeah, but leroy, that's true of any tif, correct?

>> that's correct of any tif.

>> I care about this because I agree with the sentiments with regard to the impact on our tax base and -- but I also want -- I want to advocate for a moment just for representative rodriguez that his indeed in doing this is tifs, we have the ability to do tifs now and we essentially utilize them to provide public funds for infrastructure that supports private commercial ventures that promise to grow the tax base.
his idea is a first in that it utilizes tifs, which we can use now, which have all the same problems that you've eliminated with regard to the impact on the tax base.
utilizing this tif for homestead preservation, to provide residents a mechanism to preserve affordable housing in a specific geographic area.
but yes, it has all the same problems that any tism f that we use has -- tif that we use has.

>> yes, and the purpose -- one of the pieces of this tif were to provide funds to purchase property to take it off of the tax rolls, and that in a ten-year projection at that time would essentially take about -- about $1.9 billion off the tax roll potentially over a ten-year period.
those are pure projections.
I have not freshened up those.
we were assuming the future legislation would not include Travis County and therefore I didn't freshen up those.
I was quite surprised when this bill come up and had the same language in it, or some modified language that did give us relief.
the revised language is an improvement over the last language, and it -- I think it partially reflects the meeting that the Commissioner blane and I attended with that group.
but it is still a tif, and it does say that we would be given the same percentage into the tif of the increased property value as the city of Austin, which when you got this the city and the 30% depending on property tax and as blane has said, the county over 80%, that does appear to be a little inequitable, especially since Travis County gives over $15 million a year in overall homestead preservation exemption.

>> and I might add that as -- I think this is a good -- well-intentioned effort to try to bring down the housing costs, but I don't think it quite gets there.
and certainly having gone through the motions last time of having meetings and trying to understand the issue and trying to communicate to folks who lived in that area, it was -- it was not possible.
and I think a lot of information was missing, and I think especially -- and then there's the latest report, and I didn't read it all the way through, but I think some of the city's policies in terms of growth seem to have an impact on the value of property, especially east of i-35, and I -- I think that that's missed, and I don't think a tif is going to resolve that issue.
and it's much more -- it's much bigger than that we -- what we can do as a county.
but as I was walking last time for my re-election in the city of Austin, folks wanted the city council to give them a 20% homestead exemption, and they were in favor of it, and I could see some of the houses that had paid a certain amount 20 years ago, had just increased incredibly, and it was the same little house.
and so I mean, I don't think a tif is going to resolve this issue.
I think it's going to take some city policies to probably change, and I commend representative rodriguez.
I think it's well-intentioned on his part, but I think the whole -- all of these issues, the taxes and the valuations, are just much more complicated than what, you know, we think they are.

>> you brought up a good point.
I've had a long discussion with representative rodriguez on this issue, and of course he -- and I think for the public to understand exactly where this reinvestment zone is, Commissioner Gomez -- east of i-35, but we have a map here at front of it, and of course the -- if the cameras can view it, that will be fine, but if you're not able to, fine.
but the binder of this particular zone that they're talking about today is on the west side by manor road all the way down -- basically down to the river on the western end, and the northern -- I'm saying i-35, I'm sorry, on the western end, manor road up to 35th street is still part of that western boundary.
ih-35 again on the western end of manor road up to 38, up to cherry wood, up to 38th street.
that's the basic western boundary.
now, the northern boundary is actually from 38th street all the way to airport boulevard, and airport boulevard all the way down to oak springs drive all the way down to webberville to lions street, then back over to springdale road back south toward the river.
so we're saying that is -- that that is traditional east Austin per se.
and during the discussion with some of these persons, the organization nonprofit that's looking into this, there was one person on that particular -- in that particular discussion asked the question, and she had -- this particular person had relatives, mom and dad, that lived in a home in this boundary.
and I end up telling her at that time about Travis County's ability to offer 20% homestead exemption, which we're doing, but on top of that you also at age 65 you can get a $65,000 exemption.
this person was not aware of the shortcomings for the city of Austin not being -- the same.
and that also goes for a disabled person who would like to also get $65,000 exemption off their homestead, and this comes right off the appraisal before it's taxed.
well, all these things were illustrated and laid out and and sure enough they were surprised about the availability of the cities being able to do that and not doing it, to make things affordable for our senior citizens in this area and those homestead persons that live in this area for years.
so again we're faced with this same situation, here comes the bill back, and like I say, I talked with representative rodriguez, and still the cost of things taken off the tax roll.
that's a big deal for Travis County.
since we lost so much on property taxes.
so here we are again faced with a similar situation, and of course I'm going to oppose it again as I did in the past.
I think there's other ways to get affordable housing.
I'd like to commend representative eddie rodriguez for his concern.
it's a legitimate concern, but I think there's a better way without having to take Travis County to the cleaners as far as revenue is concerned.
-- acquiring revenue.
so this information has been assimilated, and even back then before this came before the court there was a lack of persons in the community that do not know anything about what we're talking about today.
no educational effort, outreach, anything, but what we're talking about right now, and of course this boundary is again within precinct 1, and precinct 4.
the yort is in precinct 1 -- the majority is in precinct 1, my precinct.
the rest is in precinct 4.

>> I see residents have come down on this.
any comments from any of you before we run out of time?
please come forward and if you give us your name we'd be happy to get your comments.

>> I'm thankful -- my name is reverend louis.

>> we'll need you to speak into that mic for us.

>> and I'm thankful to ms. Gomez and Commissioner Davis about the fact that east Austin citizens have not been educated about this issue, and I want to try to be cordial, but it's -- it's a dragon in the closet that we -- that we don't want to discuss.
what I mean by that is I'm a native east Austinite, born and raised.
I remember as a boy there were certain places that you go, whites in the front, coloreds in the bank.
white restroom, colored restroom.
white water fountain, colored water fountain.
I remember the first civil rights March from the auditorium to the capital, which I participated in at the age of 13.
I'm thankful to Commissioner Davis for emphasizing east of i-35.
east of i-35.
it's always ugly things that are being done east of i-35.
I remember when I studied -- when I maindle in real estate at acc in 19 -- when I majored in real estate at acc in 1980, and one of my instructors said -- in 1980 he said -- I was the only black in the class.
he said, now is the time to buy in east Austin.
you could buy a house and a lot for $10,000.
and a lot of white investors have come into east Austin and bought that property cheap, and they have razed it -- raised it a thousand%.
it's time-out for this injustice that's being done, and this is just not a county issue.
this is a national issue.
look at what's going on in wisconsin.
if it wasn't for the unions, the rights that has been guaranteed us by the constitution, the average americans wouldn't have these rights.
these rights are mostly fought for by the union because politics continuously deprives us of what belongs to us, what's said in the preamble of the constitution, what's said in the 14th amendment of the constitution.
and I just want to read the last sentence of the spirit of the declaration of independence.
it states, help me holy ghost -- and for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence -- divine providence is talking about god, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
there is no sacred honor.
politics is dirty.
there's no sacred honor.
politics is ugly.
god is going to deal with this.
this ain't going -- this is not going to be -- this is not going to go away unnoticed.
the lord is going to be aware.
right is right and wrong is wrong.
how are you going to tell somebody they can own a house but they can't own the property it's sitting on.
that is barbaric.
that is unheard of.
that is really -- I can't find a word -- I can't criticize it.
I don't -- but I can't find a word that I wish I could say worse than barbaric.
that is, woo!
god bless.
you all take care.

>> thank you, reverend louis.

>> [inaudible].

>> no, I'm

>> [inaudible] --

>> good morning, judge.

>> how were you doing.

>> and -- are you doing.

>> and Commissioners.
it's just good to be here again and have the opportunity to come in and speak to you and just --

>> would you --

>> offer my opinion.

>> would you state your name for the record.

>> oh, I'm sorry, my name is scottie ivory and I'm back again.

>> [laughter] but what I want to say, I was against this proposition last time.
I'm against it again today.
I'm encompassing the area where that east Austin is.
it's always around the changes -- it's always around me and others, and unfortunate people, the ones that you can take advantage of.
it's time for us to think about what we're doing to one another.
we're supposed to look out for one another, not take away from one another.
and you know, just like he said, god is looking.
he's in control of what's going on here.
we think we're getting away with things that are not right, but you got to face it.
and so we need to face it today.
don't let people take the poor folks against their will, property, and don't force them to take it, because, see, you can -- sometimes it gets -- the taxes get so high they can't afford it.
so -- especially with all the houses.
now, around me I got all kind of mcmansions all around my head -- all strange-looking houses, this kind of house.
I'm just covered with them, but it's wrong.
we're getting it -- we would get it from the county if this were passed and we were definitely getting it from the city, the city is working on us.
they just took a church in our neighborhoods I didn't want them to have.
I told them, god is not going to like this, holy ground.
and you know when you take god out of your life, things are just not going to work out.
so what I'm saying today, I'm against it, I always will be, and I talked with mr. Rodriguez.
he sent me a letter and different things.
but I am against it.
I will always be against it because there is another way that you can take care of affordable houses for those that can't afford these houses.
the things they say affordable nowadays is way up there.
really afford these people with a place to stay.
and that's why I'm going to fight for the little man everywhere I go, because that's our job.
we have to look out for one another.
we have to love one another.
we have to care for one another.
therefore I'm saying to you today, I'll never vote for this.
and thank you.
I thank you very much, and it's just wonderful to be here.

>> yes, sir?

>> my name is george williams, I serve as the minister to the east side church of christ on airport and 14th street.
I've done so for almost the last 28 years, and we have a few of the brethren here and our concern of course is the citizens of east Austin, and I think that's critical because I once read a statement that said if you think education is expensive, try ignorance, we don't know, if people aren't educated, then we cannot make good decisions.
and so I think that as has been said by Commissioner Gomez and Ron Davis, and we thank you all for standing up for all -- for all of you for standing up for east Austin, thank you very much.
I think that it's critical that the citizens be educated and nothing has been done from what we have seen to indicate that there is a process that's in place now to do that, and so it can't be just if the people are not educated concerning the matter.
that was my concern, that's our concern, that we believe that those who are involved in the process of trying to bring this about, because again, whenever you talk about affordable housing, that's a relative term.
affordable to whom?
mueller was supposed to be affordable housing, but I think 5, 600 and $700,000 homes, that's annual going to be affordable to a certain percentage of the populace of the city of Austin.
so that's why it's incumbent upon the people to be educated, and if it's going to happen, bring it back, if it's just, if it's lawful, if it's right, if there's nothing undercurrent that's demonic in nature -- hate to go there -- then certainly we want to say educate the people.
open the books.
let's see what it's really about.
thank you.
god bless you.

>> thank you, reverend.

>> may I just make a comment?
the legislation is -- it has its flaws, most certainly, and we are working on e -- and I would like to continue to work with representative rodriguez on affordable housing for all members of -- all citizens in Travis County.
there's absolutely no intention and nor has there ever been any statement within the legislation that would require someone to turn over the dirt value in their home, ever.
and that the intention has always been with representative rodriguez's bill to check the gentrification that is forcing people out of their homes in this geographic area.
that is his intention, although I absolutely agree with my fellow Commissioners that there are flaws with the legislation with regard to its application, and particularly for Travis County's participation in it.
but there is nothing demonic or ill-intended.
it actually has as its focus, however flawed, to check the gentrification and improve and maintain affordable housing stock in private hands.

>> do you have a motion?

>> judge, I'd like to move that we do not support hb 990 and also that we remove Travis County's participation in any financial effort in this particular legislation.

>> and I'll second that, because I want to make absolutely sure that we listen to what people have to say and not gloss over their fears or whatever they think is going to happen.
I think we need to listen to what people have to say.

>> so one thing is not to approve, the other thing is to oppose.

>> yes.

>> which is the motion?

>> oppose.

>> motion is to oppose house bill 990?

>> yes, and also the -- the financial participation of Travis County.
I think we had a good presentation by our staff, and how much of an impact that will cause to Travis County.
so again, that goes along with that motion.

>> I don't know that we are posted for the second part --

>> we can oppose it and then we can bring it back if that's the case.

>> second by Commissioner Gomez.
you'll second that motion, right?

>> I have an alternative motion, an alternate motion to request of representative rodriguez that Travis County be removed from house bill 990.

>> second.

>> what now?

>> that's a substitute motion.

>> and do what?

>> to remove Travis County from house bill 990.

>> well, is that in conflict with what I just said, we oppose the bill?

>> I believe it's a different motion.

>> it would be effective in other counties that he is proposing this for?

>> this is a local bill --

>> so it's just Travis County.

>> it would only affect the city if the city chose to utilize it.

>> yeah, but --

>> let me tell you why I can't agree with this.

>> the only thing is --

>> Commissioner --

>> [inaudible] would be left --

>> yeah.
number one, this particular map demonstrates that this is in precinct 1 and 4, and I think people should respect that, as Commissioners on the Commissioners court.
none of this incorporates precinct 3 nor precinct 2.
it's our precinct that we represent.
we have constituents that rely on us as we make our decisions.

>> and I ask you to vote on projects that are --

>> I understand, and I understand that, but under the guise of long -- well, you know, I -- I'm kind of set back just a little bit.
but anyway --

>> the procedure, do we take up --

>> no, let me -- let me preside, Commissioner.

>> okay.
I want to make a comment.

>> the question is procedurally whether we take up the substitute motion first or not.
that's the only vote, whether we take up the substitute motion by Commissioner Eckhardt or the original motion by Commissioner Davis.
all in favor of taking up the substitute motion, say aye.

>> aye.

>> that's two.
all who oppose taking up the substitute motion say it, aye.

>> aye.

>> that's two.
that motion fails by a vote of 2-2-1, with the county judge abstaining.
we are back to the original motion, which is Commissioner Davis's to oppose house bill 990, seconded by Commissioner Gomez.
is there any more discussion on that motion?
all in favor of that motion?
show.

>> okay.
I'm --

>> Commissioner Davis, Commissioner Gomez and judge Biscoe voting in favor of the motion to oppose.
all who oppose --

>> judge, hold --

>> all who oppose the motion?

>> I oppose.

>> you support the motion to oppose.
that was three of us.
Commissioner Davis's motion is to oppose house bill 990.
three of us voted in favor of that motion, two oppose.
those who vote against that motion to oppose.
nobody.
so the vote carries by a vote of 3, no against, two abstentions.
so the county is officially opposed to house bill 990.
we are to let representative rodriguez know.
I move that we recess until 1:30 when we have the bond advisory committee coming back.
we'll take your question up it then.

>> and we also have e under --

>> item e.

>> we'll call 22 up.
now, we have 15 people coming at 1:30, so all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
a hungry court.

Now, shortly before lunch, we were in the middle of a discussion of item number 22, the matter involving our consideration of legislative matters, and we had covered a, the update, b, the health care district proposal, which we decided to bring back next week.
we discussed c with the director of capcog.
that was a matter involving 911 funding and decided to bring it back next week too, preferably with some written communication we could approve for distribution to our legislators.
and we had just concluded our discussion of house bill 990, the homestead preservation reinvestment zones.
and mr. Eckstein?

>> so judge, I have what I guess is a parliamentary observation to make about the court's discussion of house bill 990, which is that the court had adopted a policy that said that the court would not take action on any particular piece of legislation or even on a specific policy proposal without super majority of the court.
so I -- I guess I'm not asking for direction, I'm simply noting the fact that the court voted 3-0 to oppose the -- to oppose house bill 990.

>> well, I guess my point, though, deece, is that -- and then we went into the lunch hour, but if that was something that was pertinent and we had people, persons here for that participation, something that I think should have been stated earlier.

>> we tried to.

>> and, of course, we -- I guess my point is still getting the message to the author of the bill that we actually opposed it.
that is a matter of record.
that is a matter of record.
now, I guess my point now goes back to the fact that with the presentation by p.b.o., planning and budget office, along with the auditor and discuss the financial hardships that it would cause on this community as far as the tax base is concerned, I think those are legitimate reasons.
and again, I think that you bringing this up here after the fact is kind of, you know, not -- not --

>> he tried to bring it up before lunch.

>> well, but the policy the court adopted.

>> well, see, that's not good.

>> well, I certainly intend to communicate to representative rodriguez.

>> it needs to be done in writing.

>> I would suggest that given the vote that our policy would dictate that we take no position one way or the other on the bill because of the ambivalence of the court.

>> let me suggest this.
to be honest, I had forgotten that whether the policy applies to opposition.
so let's get a copy of that policy and let's bring it back next Tuesday for further consideration if we need to.

>> okay.

>> what, judge?

>> I'm asking for the policy in writing so we can review it between now and next Tuesday, and if further action is necessary and appropriate, we'll take it.
basically.
I knew it applied to support four legislation.

>> but never applied for opposition.

>> [multiple voices]

>> I don't think the policy says anything about opposition.
it does say support as far as bills we've been support, but I can't recall opposition.

>> but the policy is in writing.

>> the policy says the court will take action on a specific piece of legislation only when at least four members of the court agree.
so that's the policy.

>> let's review the policy between now and next week and if we need to take further action.

>> but do we need any more than that?
the policy states in order to take action, I mean we could come back and discuss it but that's what the policy says.

>> there was a motion made, a motion coming from this elected body that appears to have a lot of say and a lot of punch when a motion is made.
otherwise we could -- on every item that comes before this Commissioners court, we could look at it and say, well, the motion don't really mean any --

>> would you like the read the policy, Commissioner?

>> I don't mind looking at the policy, but what I want deece to also do is to make sure that this goes forward to the author of the bill.

>> would you like to move that we make an exception to the policy for this bill?

>> what I would like to do is the judge suggested we bring it back.
however, we have not had an opportunity to go into further detail on this and I wish deece, again, I wish you had brought it up during the time people were here to testify.
of course, with p.b.o.
and the auditor's office laying out a very, very straightforward approach to this situation, I think that's probably the route we should take and we've already voted 3-2 to oppose it.
so I think that legally by a vote of this court, I think no policy should supersede a vote of this court, per se she as far as what we approval or disapprove.
otherwise what's the purpose of the vote?
now, it appeared that we had some supported bill and stuff like that in the past and all this other kind of stuff, we voted, but the point is the vote, the vote was what this Commissioners court has put before the public is the will of this court three is the majority.
now, if that's changed, somebody needs to tell me if the law done changed.
has the law changed?

>> I'm only quoting the court's own policy.

>> well, I'm just asking about the law.

>> I'm not advised about any changes the law.

>> the law should supersede, in my opinion.
now, if we're going to circumvent the law, I think we ought to have legal look at that.

>> and we'll bring it back next week.

>> let's make a copy of the policy available to court members.

>> we'll email it to you all.

>> but in the meantime as a matter of record that the clerk has in our file and the way this was carried out and the minutes was concerned, the record suggests and says that was three in favor and however else the other two voted.
but anyway, it was a majority.
now, I would like to have that record, and I tell the clerk that, along with anything else to make sure that that gets carried over to the legislature.

>> I think that the directions that we seem to have just agreed on should leave mr. Eckstein doing nothing on this except bringing it back next week, to be fair.

>> okay, well, that doesn't preclude any elected official to do what they wanted to do.
hearing my constituents as I've heard in the past, I'm not knocking what he's supposed to bring back, judge, I'm not opposing any of that, but I just think the urgency of the matter is we need to proceed with the way the vote actually went.
and, of course, I can always do that on my own independently and I don't know where the court is going to plan on next week as far as this other stuff is concerned, but the rule and will of the court was to -- it's a 3-2 vote.
three is a majority.
if that's changed by law, somebody needs to tell me.

>> anything under 22 e?

>> yes, sir.
we have a number of modifications we want to make to the legislative agenda.
there was a supplemental document that was e-mailed to you and distributed to your offices at the end of last week, and I just want to present you with another copy of it.
there are three really small changes we want to make and let me just walk through them very quickly.
we already have in our legislative agenda a -- in fact, that's one of our priorities, a position that says that we would oppose any cuts to and would support additional funding for health and human services that benefit Travis County residents.
of course with just the scope of what we're seeing in terms of the budget cuts, I thought it would be prudent to, if you would give authority to oppose budget cuts whether they were helping health and human services and just broader than helping health and human services.
we're seeing them in our criminal justice area, in emergency communications as we discussed this morning.
so the first amendment I would suggest to the agenda would just be to strike the phrase health and human services from that priority item.
obviously, of course, health and human services continues to be a major concern for the court.
the second change --

>> it's a broadening basicallyly.

>> I move approval of that change.

>> discussion?
all in favor?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, Huber, Gomez and yours truly voting in favor.
mr. Davis abstaining.

>> the second one is that the court had already adopted a resolution in favor of full fund for the lirap programs and the local initiative programs and we just wanted to have the court's legislative agenda reflect that.
I believe they adopted that two weeks ago.
as you know, lirap is the low-income vehicle replace many program.
this really is just to corm on the legislative agenda to the court's action.

>> do we have some statement of the reasons why we believe full funding should be left in place?

>> you caught me there, judge.
I don't know if we do or not.

>> let's give it to ms. Noel and put that together.

>> I think when the court acted a couple weeks ago, was there not a resolution?
I'm sorry, I'm just blanking.

>> something has a written --

>> we can bring something back.
do you want to hold off on this one?

>> no, let's move.
this is moving, right?

>> it is moving.

>> move approval.

>> second.

>> discussion?
all in favor?

>> let me ask this question.
this particular lirap situation, has there been any indication of if this program is discontinued or anything else, had there been indication of what situation that would put the county in as far as its air quality status?
in other words, if we have taken things -- not funded, if things are funded where we are ending up into a nonattainment status, is this -- is any of these things being considered when it comes to e.p.a.?

>> that's a great question, Commissioner.
I believe that lirap was providing Travis County about $1.6 million a year.
I don't have my numbers in front of me.
obviously that was being used to help replace vehicles that were contributing to the air quality concerns in Travis County and the people like adell noel who work with lirap is convinced that is helpful to reducing overall emissions.
so we can anticipate some kind of bad effect from the zeroing out of money around the state for that program.
of course, there's also lirap programs going on in north Texas and in the houston-galveston area which are the other nonattainment areas or near nonapainment areas in Texas.

>> it just appears to me if we're taking things off the table by not being funded that really associate with the air quality standard of this community, it just appears to me that should be some relaxation from e.p.a.
the question is will there be any relaxation from e.p.a.
with these particular programs taken off the table to ensure that we continue to maintain in an attainment status for Travis County.
that's my concern.

>> and as you know, Commissioner, the e.p.a.
was in the process not of relaxing the standards but --

>> they actually increased the standard, I understand that.

>> that is on hold, but that obviously will make it harder to keep news --

>> with the current proposed standard that they are suggesting.

>> yes, sir.

>> e.p.a.
so we need to look at that.

>> lirap low pressure even more important if they tighten the standards.
-- lirap will be even more important if they tighten the standards.

>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
mr. Eckstein.

>> thank you, judge.
the third one is just a general provision that would support legislation to promote local control over the planning and management of both surface water and ground wastewater resources.
obviously this is a chronic issue here in the state of Texas.
we have a variety of organizations whether it's the lower colorado river authority or ground water control districts or the edwards aquifer authority that have some regulatory authority over water.
there is a battle brewing over at the legislature over what is the proper balance between protecting the rights of individual landowners to the water under their land and having some kind of stewardship and overall management, and for that reason we are suggesting that the court adopt a provision that would just give us general direction in terms of trying to promote the notion of planning and coordination of water resources.

>> I move approval.

>> second.

>> now, what's the motion doing?
so is there legislation that we are --

>> there are not -- I'm not at this point asking for the courts to take a position on any specific legislation, but I can tell that this is an issue that's going to be roiling the waters at the legislature during the session and if the court wants to be out front on that, I think it would be good to get this direction today and then we'll come back to the court with more information about specific bills.

>> for the court to of record take the position that local governmental entities should be authorized to do the necessary planning and what else was that?

>> just in terms of stewardship of water resources, local control over planning and management.

>> it's buried in the paragraph.

>> all right.

>> yeah, it's right at the bottom of the -- page 2.

>> the last two lines.

>> yes, sir.

>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.

>> thank you very much.

>> thank you.

>> deece, let me say this to you before you leave.
we're just checking on things.
in conclusion of that earlier item, item d, before you went to eat, you didn't present that and, of course, I just think that needs to be noted.
and if you have done the research prior to this particular agenda item coming up, then I think you should have illustrated that, so I'm really now need to investigate from the county attorney to which supersedes, the actual vote from the Commissioners court or some policy.
so which by law supersedes the other and I need to get with legal to figure that out.
in the meantime, I'm going to send whatever I think is necessary to the state legislature, the delegation, let them know what the vote was, and, of course, I think --en I have to get with the county attorney's office to see what supersedes in this particular case, but I would like to get that letter and I'll work with you on the form of that letter.

>> yes, sir.

>> as an individual elected official from this court.

>> I'm happy to work with you on that, Commissioner.

>> okie-doke.
thanks.

>> thank you all.

>> thank you, mr. Eckstein.

>> tomorrow is Texas independence day and there are 84 days remaining in the session.

>> thanks.
do we get any bills starred this week?

>> the gold star for this week goes to lila suppose oshata at adult probation who literally analyzed what could only be called a big litter of bills for us this week and allowed us to get a good bead on some of the bills that could affect our adult probation department which as you know is facing a budget cut in the range of 5 to $8 million just in Travis County alone.
obviously very important legislation.
lela is our gold star member of the week.

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, February, 2011 2:19 PM

Tuesday, March 1, 2011, Item 22

Tuesday, March 1, 2011,
Item 22