Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 21
For a very patient deese eckstein let's consider 21, consider and take action on legislative matters, including axe, update, b, house bill 2702 relating to the application of statutes that classify political subdivisions according to population.
c, house bill 2979 relating to county authority to provide certain exemptions to restrictions on outdoor burning.
d, hb 1975 relating to the submission of election changes under section 5 of the voting rights act of 1965, and e, amendants to the priorities, policy positions and the positions on other proposals sections of the Travis County legislative agenda.
good afternoon.
>> good afternoon, judge Biscoe, members of the court.
first of all, thank you for the complement, judge.
yobble I i don't believe I have ever been described as the very patient deeseeckstein.
probably won't again but nice to hear today.
wanted to give you an overview.
we are lucky to have our legislative consultant with us to share some of his insights and answer questions and then move to the three particular bills that the court wanted to address today.
as you know, a lot of the news coverage this last week and the dynamics of the capitol this last week have been devoted to the budget.
the house passed its budget a couple weeks ago.
the issue is now in the senate finance committee.
chairman steve og done has ed to get a bill by this Thursday but having to work hard at it.
the bill the senate is looking at has somewhere in the 10-12 billion dollar range more than the bill that passed out of the house a couple weeks ago.
she really doing that because there just are a lot of challenges in trying to line up votes in the senate finance committee and the floor.
greg is going to address that a little more.
good news is that version of the bill restores fund to go a lot of the kind of primel issues that were really hurt by the original budget, particularly in the areas of education and health and human services, mental health funding, some of the areas I know the members of the court care about.
with respect to county services, our money for adult probation, juvenile justice, those things, some of that money back in the senate bill.
we won't know for sure until they pass something out what the target looks like.
all in all, a bill that spends a little more money, although neither version spends as much as budgeted in the current biennium.
we are still talking about backing an I way not even from--away not even current services, but even from the current budget which is about 183 billion into some number that is less than that.
so that is the dynamic of that.
we have also had the house redistricting committee reported out a redistricting map for the house .
there's a new e have of the --new version of the map.
I haven't seen it yet.
my understanding is it doe does not affect Travis County.
I will try to confirm that.
I want to turn over to greg and see if he has comments with respect to the budget process.
>> Commissioners, good afternoon.
I will add a few comments to what deesehad to say about the budget.
and he is correct that the senate finance I think will pass out of budget this Thursday, essential what will happen after this Thursday is over the easter week end the full small staff will be printing the budget for the full senate to consider on probably Thursday of next week.
at least that is what I'm hearing.
it's interesting to see and hear what is going on with respect to the full senate trying to get enough votes to pass the bill out.
every senator has their own pet project.
I know that they are making sure that certain senators that they feel like might be on the fence on the whole budget make sure that certain things get funded.
but I think many members of the senate are digging their heels in the dirt.
and I don't know that they are going to come on board, so to speak, with those members desperately trying to pass the budget.
in the end I think they will have the votes to pass the budget.
you probably heard the select committee that is dealing with nontax revenue, essential senator duncan has been asked to chair that committee and they have had a long lun ready list of essentially tax exemptions they have discussed doing away with as recently as this morning I am starting to hear more and more that some of those exemptions are getting strong consideration from members of the senate including chairman ogden, chair of senate finance.
essentially the discussion is, well, if they are exemptions that would bring in a lot of revenue, that could potentially be harmful if we do away with those.
maybe we should try just a two-year moratorium on those exemptions for the next biennium to get us to where we need to be then next session we could potentially reinstate.
those are the discussions that are going on.
as deese said, the gap of up to 10 to 12 billion dollars still does in the get us there.
are we going to get a little more money out of the rainy day fund, it's hard to tell.
I had a conversation with one of the potential budget confer ees this morning and essentially the conversation was I know, I realize we have to fix that.
so what exactly does that mean.
if the confer es truly feel they are going to be able to shore up that gap, they have a tremendous challenge ahead of them.
>> what are they going to do with the money that was coming down?
any plans yet for the 800 million from washington?
>> the so-called amendment money $80347--$830 million, the house passed yesterday a supplemental that would fold that into the budget for education.
and they actually passed two or three different bills yesterday, all of which would, 830 million here, a billion there, and I think their goal was to add $3.6 billion to the available revenues above and beyond the house passed version of the bill.
so when greg and I are talking about a $11 billion gap between the house and the senate, the house is already trying to find some of the money for that in ways that the house can accept.
and as greg said, senator duncan is working to find some other parts of issue.
the big issue is whether or not that much, however how much it is, is enough to get the house and senate together or whether the senate is going to say, we want to also use two, three, four, whatever it is billion dollars from the rainy day fund.
ation recently as Sunday, chairman pits told the tv interviewer that he did not think there were a hundred votes in the house to use any more money from the rainy day fund for the next biennium.
it could be that we can close the gap between, let's just say $11 billion, we could close that the two committees can close it some, but may not be able the get all the way this which case it becomes a standoff.
>> (off microphone)
>> has gone directly to funding and not been used to offset for legislature to be using appropriate case and folding in.
>> right.
>> they have used it to balance the budget.
>> (off microphone)
>> yes.
>> that is where we stand.
>> (off microphone)
>> if you remember there was an amount of $800,000 that would have affected cap cogs funding of the public safety answering points.
there was a proposal they were circulating to try to save that money which had been cut in terms of the stream coming from the state, $800,000 worth.
representative paul workman got an amendment on to hb 1 that would put $800,000 back in and dedicate it to the central Texas capcog for the purpose of funding those psaps.
as of now in the house version of the bill, that $800 thown is back in the bill and is going to be used to fund that.
if I remember correctly--
>> earmarked that money to come from the law enforcement, criminal justice.
>> it would come from the governor's criminal just disdivision over to the 911 fund through that to capcog that is correct.
and if you remember, I believe that capcog in this biennium had about $20 million cut down to $15 million.
of that $5 million cut, the 800,000 has been replaced.
the other $4 million cut as far as I know has not been replaced.
>> the problem with that is capcog believes that the cogswould get more money for 911 but would suffer on the other hand.
and capcog here we're saying that it will eliminate their training, law enforcement training program.
so they are saying they prefer that doesn't happen.
>> they want you to know that they are giving you the money back that they took from your other pocket.
>> judge, I think there's also something working with capcog and all the folks they are working at the legislature as well along with workman where they could reinstate some of the other money.
it's more than just the 800, as I have been explaining, we're looking at over $5 million in cuts.
>> uh-huh.
>> that is the one I'm concerned about as your representative, the majority of those cuts and what it does affect for capcog add minimum as well as for operational costs, maintenance, replacement costs.
so my understanding from the latest word I have gotten, and I hope y'all could check it out to follow through, is that there's several fronts on this to where that they have the 845 but also, or 842, but also working on others funding to come back as well.
>> okay.
have you chatted with betty voice at capcog recently?
she is supposed to be communicating with the other cogs statewide.
>> .
>> okay.
>> I understand they are looking at Travis County and thinking we have done a bad thing to them.
>> I did visit with betty about that particular issue.
and she is concerned about that.
what kind of gave me some relief there are other things that have been working prior to that bill as well as that bill and she has confidence in that.
so I think it may be an of a win-win hopefully.
>> did you talk with her after last Wednesday or before?
>> your when it was.
I think it was before last Wednesday.
>> what I just described we heard from her directly on Wednesday, the whole executive committee of capcog did.
anyway, I do think we ought to stay in touch.
this is one of the deals where, you know, clearly there are good intentions.
but the harm may be greater than losing the 911 money based on what the cog's interpretation of the impact of that attacks.
>> what we don't have at this point is an analysis of what the final senate finance committee budget will look like.
hopefully if they voted out on theirs, as greg says, but early next week, working with cc and tack, we can have some kind of nag assist of what the budget does--analysis of what the budget does to programs including 911 funding, adult probation, criminal justice grants funding.
we'll have some sense of how the senate budget addresses that and be able to offer some comparisons of that to the house bill.
>> the other little fact I think is that is important, we don't use the law enforce.
training center because we have our own.
but the other capcog counties d.
>> right.
>> so they will be impacted by the loss of these funds and the training academy, not Travis County.
>> you know, as you know, judge, there's a lot of state money built into the budget to assist small counties, whether it's indigent defense grants, healthcare grants, training grants.
there's a county assistance fund run out of the comptroller's office.
a lot of those programs have been swept and those will have a much more dramatic impact on smaller counties than they do on some of the large counties like travis.
but either way, county government is taking it on the chin in the budget process so far.
>> before we leave the subject, just for the purpose of anybody that may be listening in, that is not a budget cut for 911, just a withholding of dedicated funds for purposes of balancing the budget at the legislature.
I don't know how that is going to ultimately shake out at the final bill.
that is the beef.
it's really dedicated money, not to divert or cut, just not being disdistributed.
>> I think that was betty's concern.
just as we don't want money taken out of the dedicated fund, the money already there, she didn't want money taken out of another fund, criminal justice, to fund 91 1st --91 1st they are when the money is already--911 when the money is already there.
>> it bears watch yes, ma'am.
>> in terms of specific bills, the first one I wantd to bring up is hb 2702.
the court asked us to wait a week on this.
this is the bill that add justs all the population brackets in state legislation in order to reflect the new data coming from the census.
the theer of the bill is that--theory is that the legislative intent when they created a law that say bracketed dallas, harris and terant counties, it was their intent to specifically do that and used population brackets and now we should add just those up yard or downward in order that the law still captures the three.
one of the issues for Travis County, there was a population bracket involving the calculation of work week or length, work period, pay period, for sheriffs deputies that applied to counties over a million.
under the new census we fall into that bracket.
and that would require us to calculate pay periods on a seven-day basis.
under the previous lay, we could calculate it on any basis up to and including a 28-day basis.
so the question that came before the court, I know the court, I think in anticipation of this happening, had discussed this previously in terms of a policy issue.
I have been asked to get the court's opinion as a legislative issue, whether or not they want to work to try to get that bracket raised so as to e preserve the flexibility of the county with respect to pay periods for sheriff's deputies.
>> deese, I said this when we discussed previously, not only was it last week or two weeks ago when we discussed it, but also in previous years, I am not in favor of changing the bracket.
I think that we are a big county now and to pretend otherwise is inappropriate.
there's a few issues that strike the heart of labor issues, whether law enforcement or municipal, county and municipal employees, few issues strike so close to the heart as how long the work week is.
I would be in favor of not touching the bracket and going into the bracket naturally as county over a million people this is one of the circumstances where legislators often use the population bracket just to capture certain cities, but frankly, the population bracket, I think, is appropriate for this particular area.
>> just to be clear, Commissioner, it doesn't really have do with work week.
it just has do with how the pay period a calculated.
if they work overtime in one particular week, then they would get paid overtime rates for those extra hours is for the next week.
>> it's a way to have more flexibility over four weeks.
but it does create havoc in the home life.
it's very difficult to plan with your family if you are not sure how many hours you're going to work this week as opposed to the next week.
it does create instability that labor unions were designed to address.
so I would be in favor of allowing us to naturally roll into the over million population bracket on this particular issu.
>> I would then recommend that the court take no action.
>> currently 2702 has no language.
>> it does not have the bracket of add adjustment in it.
so the court would have to direct igr if it wanted us to do that.
I can count enough votes to know if I need four and I only have four on the dias, I would recommend the court take no action.
>> I for one several times said the census will take care of this issue for us when we have been asked to twively consider it.
>> I'm in agreement on the same thing.
>> next issue, judge, is house bill 2979 which has to do with the authority of a county Commissioners court to order burn ban and to make exceptions to that order within the burn ban order.
it would expand the number of exceptions a county can make.
that is about the extent of my knowledge about it so I'm very happy to have her shall, the county fire marshal, to explain the bill in more detail to the court.
>> thank you, sir.
bearings--basically, this is adding a section to local government code and it says that Commissioners court of the county may provided additional exemptions from an order.
those additional exemptions that you might choose to provide would be prescribed burns conducted by specific prescribed burn associations, outdoor burning by specific state agency landowners, and then number three is pretty lengthy, so I won't read, but outdoor by private landowners after the court decides whether or not they have the training and expertise and insurance and those things.
some of the things that concern me about this is currently when we enact a burn ban, we already exempt prescription burns conducted by prescription burn managers that are trained according to the natural resources code.
we already do that.
nothing that I can find tells me what a specific prescribed burn association is.
I have looked for that under the resources code and other places.
I don't know where that association is.
it's not defined.
could deese and I form our association and decide that we were now a prescription burn association?
that is not defined.
the second one is addressed to outdoor burning, not prescription burning.
those are two different things.
outdoor burning by specific state agency land owner.
this would allow, and in the narrative from the agriculture department, Texas department of agriculture, it outlines people like Texas parks and wildlife, united states fish and wildlife and those type people that already use prescription burn management.
so if they have a prescription burn manager, we already except those people.
this last one is not aimed at prescription burning, then it goes back to outdoor burning.
but it says that this can be a private individual that if the court determines that this private individual has knowledge experience, planning, personnel, liability insurance, and equipment to safely conduct a planned prescribed burn, then the court could choose to exempt that person from that burn ban and allow them to burn just in outdoor burning.
so the language of these proposed new exemptions are of a concern.
to me they are not very clear.
to me it would kind of muddy up the water as far as enforcement of your order when you order an outdoor burn ban.
>> the bill has been filed and referred to the house county affairs committee.
it has not yet been set for hearing.
so one option for court is use to wait and see whether or not the bill begins to move before it takes action, although I think hershell's adjustment about the bill is pretty clear.
it is a permissive bill, so it would not require the Commissioners court to do anything one way or another.
but of course, it would subject the court to any kind of pressure from these outdoor prescribbed burn associations or the organization that hershel and I form once the bill passes to be able to come and do prescribed burns.
so it would open that up in terms of the court being asked to do some of those things or make some of those exceptions.
so it is not a mandatory bill but there are some concerns about it.
>> can we hold back and do nothing until we see if the bill starts to move, to work with the powers that be on improving the language?
it sound to me like the language is sufficiently unclear, just as you say.
it would muddy the bats more --waters more than anything else.
even if we wanted to use it, we wount know how.
>> in reading and thinking bit, some won would have to spend some time writing policy definition about training, insurance, and how much equipment is enough for this big of a burn.
it would take a considerable amount of time to get that done if the court were to choose to exempt someone, especially a private individual, from the current orders.
>> do we know what issues representative hunter was trying to address?
by this bill?
>> I do not.
>> I placed a call to that office and did not get a clear answer.
and in addition, the letter that we received from the Texas department of agriculture, they were offering a packet of information.
when I asked for the packet, basically it is a template for a prescribed burn manager to fill out.
but it also had a couple of pages of narrative saying that this was really a good idea and the prescription burns are good management tools.
I agree that they are in the hand of prescription burn managers.
they are a good tool and we currently use that and allow that here with city of Austin has property in the county where they do prescribed burns.
us fish and wildlife has property where they do prescription burns.
so when people are trained and are using the current rules, I think we work very well with them to allow those.
but I did not get a clear answer about exactly what they want.
but the letter from Texas department of agriculture seems to promote this bill, although it does not mention the bill by name.
>> are there current exemptions already in place that work well?
beyond what the concerns are with this bill.
>> the current exemptions, actually two groups.
firefighter training, but firefighters generally won't burn unless it's in a building.
public utility and nat ralt gas line or mining operations are exempted.
planning and harvesting of crops is exempted and the other is prescription burns when the manager is trained by natural resource code standards.
>> so this is more exemptions for the prescription burns.
>> this would add exemptions naming prescription burns that we already allow.
but then it those in the caveat of the state can burn if it wants to if they own the land, or specific state agencies can burn if they own that land.
but it also would open the door for private landowner to petition the court to be able to burn in the burn ban.
>> if this gets movement, will we have the luxury of time with our weekry cycle to react to it?
>> of course as you know, Commissioner, depends on how fast everything moves.
but I think we would probably at least have enough warning that it was coming down the pike that we would be able to bring this back to the court at that time if necessary.
>> if we don't like it, best action may be not to take any action, right?
I wouldn't go out of month I way to pick a fight.
>> right.
>> I would fight back.
I don't know that I would, I guess I'm sitting here thinking maybe smaller communities really would benefit from the language.
if it doesn't do us harm, we just have to be bold enough to say we are exercising our discretion by not doing anything under this bill.
>> I think that would be appropriate.
if the Commissioners court decided that we like where we stand with our current order when we enact one, and this may be good for our neighbor across the county line, but we really don't think it's good for us.
might be a position the court would take should this bill pas.
>> sort of related to this, a bigger problem for me really are those that use the fireworks throughout the year.
and since this fire over the weekend, I have e-mail and phone calls about that.
really when you think about it, throwing our cigarettes and fireworks when the conditions are as they are, seems to be more of a danger, in my view.
my recommendation on this would be just to wait.
I guess if we really feel compelled to take a position at some point, then I would try to come up with language that I thought would clarify more than just oppose it or get out that and support it and we don't like it.
>> final bill that we want to bring before the court today di.
>> should we leave it on the agenda just in case each week?
>> yes, sir.
>> I think it's a good idea.
>> okay.
>> we can leave it on the agenda.
the final bill before the court today is hb 1975.
Commissioner Davis actually asked about this bill last week.
this is the bill that would direct the attorney general, secretary of state and any other Texas state officers required to participate in the process of getting redistricting maps approved, to rather than go through the justice department and seek preclearance, go directly to the united states district court for the district of columbia and ask them to rule on the map.
the bill has been filed.
it has not begun to move yet.
I'm not sure if it is going to move, but it was something Commissioner Davis asked about.
it would not affect the county's map.
the county is going to begin the process of drawing its own maps for the Commissioner precincted and justice of the peace and constable.
this would just affect the maps the state presents to the department of justice .
we have no recommendation about the bill.
we will keep monitoring to watch for amendments or anything else we think deserves the court's attention.
>> okay.
>> in that regard then, we have just the final item for you, judge.
members of the court, we have a motion in writing which is to sort of update our legislative agenda in order to reflect the decisions the court has amend.
if you look at the motion writing in your backup packet, there are actually three subparts to it.
the third one has to do with the hb 2702 and add adjusting the brackets.
so I recommend the court leave that out of the motion and not address that motion or not address that policy position in the motion.
I would ask the court to development the motion as to the other two policy po igs iss.
the first, oppose legislation that would reduce or eliminate local control or the placement and usage of digital electronic big boards.
the court took a position on that last week.
9 last one, support legislation that would give Travis County more options for storage and maintenance of paper records.
you remember a couple weeks ago the court decided to support hb 1844 that had to do with collaborating with the Texas state library archives commission on storage of county records.
>> move approval of 1 a and 2 a but not 2 b.
>> second.
>> did I get it right?
discussion.
all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
any update on the appraisal caps revenue caps et cetera?
>> nothing is happening.
as I believe I mentioned last week, the rumor we hear is that the house ways and means committee will give a hearing to the appraisal and revenue cap bills in the house, perhaps as early as next week.
the committee meets on Monday.
they did meet yesterday and the appraisal cap and remedy cap bills were not on the house ways and means committee agenda for this week.
we'll see whether or not, are they taking Monday off?
>> they are set to come in late on Monday.
>> late on Monday.
I don't know if the ways and means committee will meet on Monday or it will meet late, how thick an agenda it will have.
in the senate, the bills have all been heard, have been left pending in committee, and they have not moved yet.
all of which we consider good news.
>> I just have one question.
maybe it comes under b.
have you heard of the senate bill 1048 on p3?
I guess it's an economic development committee.
do you know anything about it?
anything happened?
>> I think it's actually coming to the floor of the senate today.
I can just confirm that very quickly.
>> I cannot remember the senator's name.
>> senator jackson in the senate.
I want to say john Davis is carrying it in the house.
I forget the number of the bill in the house.
let me just confirm whether or not it's on the calendar for today.
actually, it is apparently passed today while the court was in session.
it passed this morning with one amendment added to it.
I haven't seen that amendment.
>> it goes to the house now?
>> it now goes to the zouse who is in the house?
>> john Davis down by clear lake his district.
>> I guess we may as well get a copy of that bill.
>> and in fact there are a number of bills sort of related to that.
off ours has been doing an analysis trying to put that together for the court.
we will try to finish that up and certainly get a copy of 1040 a out today and get you the analysis in the next day or so.
>> those that attended the training last Wednesday got a copy of the bill.
>> right.
how many pages is it?
>> oh, it's--
>> it's long.
>> it's long.
>> maybe 16, 18 pages, something like that.
>> I'll wait on your analysis.
>> we'll be happy to provide that analysis as soon as we can finish.
>> I guess we can put on the agenda whenever y'all are ready to give us the analysis.
>> of course.
>> if we think it's moving, may as well put it on.
>> put it on for next week.
there are 42 days remaining in the session.
a bit of good news.
>> too many.
>> thank you very much judge, members of the court.
>> 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.
