Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, May 10, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 15
In the meantime, let's call up 15.
15 is to consider and take appropriate action on legislative matters including, a, update on legislative activities, b, adoption of a resolution regarding the state budget for the 2012-2013 biennium.
we indicated this morning c had been pulled.
d, legislation relating to county wide voting centers, including 2055 and sb 1355.
e, house bill 664 relating to voting eligibility requirements for members of a metropolitan planning organization policy board.
f, redistricting, particularly as it affects Travis County.
g, adoption of resolutions on legislation previously discussed by the Commissioners court, including hb 3254 and sb 878, and, h, amendments to the priorities, policy positions and positions on other proposals sections of the Travis County legislative agenda.
>> good morning, judge bisco.
members of the court.
thank you for the opportunity to visit with you today.
I want to update on two things quickly before we get into the specific items. The first is the budget development.
as members of the court know, last week the senate approved a budget that has $12 billion more in it than the house version of the budget, however the senate took out a version it had in the original finance committee report that says that $3 billion of the budget would be, consist of rainy day fund money.
the significance of that is very important because once the senate said they were not going to use rany day fund money we really are dealing with a smaller pie, if you will, than we were before.
and the house and senate have now appointed their conference committees, the conferees will start meeting in the next day or so.
the senate just named its conferees yesterday and they will have a report probably within the next two weeks sometimes.
I think that my counsel to the court at this point is we should assume that the final budget they agree upon will look much more like the house version of the budget than the senate version.
you know we briefed the court several times on cuts to I our adult probation and juvenile probation program, some court programs and some public safety programs. The court, as it continues to fashion its own budget, probably needs to start assuming the final state budget will look like the final senate budget which is unfortunate for the residents of the county.
the second thing I want to minutes to the court this morning, judge, last week you asked me what was the status of the appraisal cap and revenue cap bills and I was optimistic nothing was going to move and I spoke too soon.
there is house bill 874 in the house and senate bill 1771 in the senate, same bill, and it restructures the way in which we notify taxpayers about the tax rates and the taxes they're going to pay.
it creates a new thing called the same services tax rate, which is actually very confusing and difficult to calculate, and assumes we can make the same services without any change, without any accounting for things like inflation, population growth, changes in people's status.
for instance, here in Travis County, we offer over 65 65 exemption, or the legislature passed last took to the voters for their approval an amend that would allow veterans a reduction on their things, excuse me, on their property tax payments, on liability this bill would assume as if none of those things were going on out there and would make in some ways a complicated but some way as simplistic calculation of the same services tax rate in opinion of our tax collector and other tax professionals, our auditors, this will don't confuse voters more.
we've been working, both bills seem bottled up but the senate voted the senate version out and the house version voted out as light last night about 7:00 p.m.
we've been working to make sure those bills don't go any further.
we're working with the Texas association of counties wasn't hope to have good news for the court next week.
we will haveach better sense of things by this time next week.
we are hitting the deadlines.
last night was the last night a house bill could be reported out of a house committee.
during the day today, they will set the final calendars for floor action in the house on house bills.
one of the efforts we were making this morning was to try keep that house bill I just mentioned to you off the calendar for this week, so the deadlines are beginning to kick in, funnel is beginning to fariom bills are fall to the wayside.
some are bad bills and we're working hard to push them off to the wayside and some are our bills and we're continuing to work toward advance them that is a general report on where we stand.
I would like to take up the specific items and start with item b.
>> can I ask you a question.
>> yes.
>> I saw a question,ed aitier and tax collector, the auditor to send position statements to the capital regarding the impact of the bills you just mentioned.
were you able to get those if.
>> we have drafted something for the tax assessor, collector and I'm hoping to get it back from her today so we can distribute it to members of the delegation.
we've not heard back from the auditor about it.
>> is there an effort under way in other counties to take similar actions?
>> yes, the dallas county tax assessor collector has sent a learn to the senate members of the delldation about 1771 and is preparing a new letter about the house version of the bill but we're working very closely conference room counties and Texas association of counties in trying to get the word out about these bills and try to get the elected officials to weigh in on it.
I would take this moment to encourage members of the court if they have an opportunity to make calls to members of our delegation or other legislators with know and other fellly county judges and Commissioners to encourage them to get the word out to members of the Texas legislature who care about county government issues.
>> are we able to do a resolution in opposition under 15-b?
involvement in the state budget?
>> that's as close as you're going to get.
>> thank you, john.
that's an affirmative.
>> that is a weak affirmative, yes.
>> I think we ought to do that and set forth of specific reasons why.
get that to the delegation members and any other county officials that we believe appropriate.
>> we certaincally have a resolution ready for the court by this afternoon, if that's what you're asking, judge.
>> my motion would be for us to execute an appropriate resolution under 15-b, addressing the issues that he just outlined for us.
>> second.
>> seconded by commission ergo Commissioner Gomez.
discussion?
passed byuman must vote.
>> very well -- by unanimous vote.
vote.
>> we will get that pack to you.
and I believe this was brought to us by coalition of citizens groups and employee groups who were asking for us to take a stand, really in favor of fully investing in the state of Texas in our state budget.
>> and that is really accessing the rainy day fund because there seems to be no other reasonable alternative.
>> you know, we have $9 billion in the rainy day fund as much now with the price of -- as of now with the price of gas and oil going up it will replenish itself much more quickly than we thought it would.
I believe that the house version of the bill in order to close this year's budget deficit, spends about $3.2 billion from the rainy day fund so it is sitting there with about $6 billion in it.
there is a lot of opposition to the use of using the rainy day fund, although as many people have said, if it is not raining now, when is it going to be raining?
so thing is part of the resolution that you're referring to, judge, is to say let's use the rainy day fund as part of closing the gap between what we have available and what the need is in Texas.
>> I move approval.
>> second.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> I'm in favor of this resolution but I will borrow a phrase from Commissioner Gomez, it is raining but it is manufactured rain, one time rain for on going expenses because the legislature has not generated the necessary revenue to govern, so while I'm in favor of this motion philosophically, I'm not at all in favor of using one-time money for on going expenses.
the legislature needs to get their act in order and be fiscally responsible.
this is the height of fiscal irresponsible.
this is manufactured rain.
we are a wealthy state.
>> could weed ad that to like footnote.
although we support this because we need to balance and not makes a many cuts, we normally don't do that, which is why we have aaa rating.
we don't spend one-time money.
>> hear it so many times before hearing it one more time.
>> remember, you have to hear something 38 times before you hear it.
>> there is some signal us taking action and moving on.
>> there is a line in here we believe that smart public investment and vicious use of the rainy day fund strengthens, not weakens the q.
economy sway slightly politer way of saying what I think the members of the court are trying to express in terms of how their opinion of the state is judging, so we could come back with another resolution, we could rye to redraft this and bring it back to the court this afternoon.
that's at the pleasure of the court.
>> what if we just inserted a clause that says, whereas, all those use of one-time Monday for on going expenses is worrisome, the Travis County court believes -- blah, blah blah.
>> ed a made it appropriate language want.
how is that.
>> okay.
>> any more discussion?
or qualifications?
all in favor?
that passes by a unanimous vote.
you're on a roll.
>> yes, thank you very much, judge.
the third item on the, was the one we pulled, that is senate bill 627 that had to do with the Travis County health care district.
>> that's been pulled.
>> the question we had with them has been resolved so we did pull that.
>> all right.
>> the next one is the status of county white polls place legislation.
members last week received a briefing from the county clerk about her plan to implement county wide, what they call county wide poling place, a program here with voting centers scattered around the county.
>> if the bill --
>> what you have in your packet is a briefing.
there are actually five bills throughout that deal with expanding the current pilot program for county wide voting and two of those probably are dead at this point.
two of those are very muddled up right now.
they have other provisions in them that are the subject of a great deal of debate.
and will is one provision had a would expand the current number of pie lots, which the sector -- pilots, which the secretary of state oversees from five to 10.
this is the county efficiency act, house bill 2945, we hope that will keep moving forward.
others I mentioned, but the others have other provisions now slowing them down.
what those bills would do with respect to the county wide poling places is say, if you were participating in a pilot project already, and the secretary of state certifies that you've done everything well, then you in a sense graduate from the pilot project to being able to do this on an on going basis and we will add other, we can now add other jurisdictions so it is really a way in which we're, the Commissioner's court to decide they wanted to apply to do this, they would be able to apply in a sense, standing in line behind ohs that are doing it and would graduate from that so all of those bills are still alive, although they may not be by this time next week.
but we will keep the court posted on that.
I don't think that, we're not asking the court to take any action on that you just asked us for information on where those bills stood.
the next item has to do with house bill 664 which related to voting eligibility requirements for voters of the mpo policy board this is a bill that would require that all of members of an mpo policy board be elected officials.
here the about campo board has, of 19 members, has two members that are not currently elected officials.
one is an appointee by the Texas department of transportation.
the other is somebody that Travis County has actually appointed.
>> aren't there three.
cap metro would not be an elected member of the board it would affect three of the board members, I believe.
>> I guess that's right.
I was thinking that cap metro had an elect owed official as its representativetive but it don't so that's right.
of the 19, three now are not elected officials.
you point out something else, Commissioner Eckhardt, which is were cap metro to try sect from its member which are elected officials and nonelected officials, someone to represent it on the capital board, it would be limited in its own disdegrees choosing who it wanted to appoint so there is some draw backs to this bill.
it is not moving right now but I've been asked to bring it to the court and to ask the court if we can take position in opposition to any legislation would reduce or eliminate local discretion in the competition of an mpo policy board.
>> why don't we threat slow to die.
I don't know that I have a strong feeling one way or the other.
>> I do have a fairly strong feel going it.
we do have a majority elected campo board by our own decision.
if we are, if any one of our members decided that they felt strongly that they wanted to have a nonelected technical member, rather than one of their elected officials currently, they can do that.
or we could change our by-laws to facilitate that, but under this legislation, we would be locked into only political appointees on the policy board.
as we have seen in mpos really across the nation and in our own mpo that we're not to be set apart that if transportation decisions are made based on politics rather than policy, you end up with --
>> who is pushing this?
>> > it was Commissioner Eckhardt that asked me put this on the agenda.
>> no, I mean --
>> this is representative larson from san antonio, a freshman representative from san antonio, former san antonio city council member and county Commissioner.
>> won't this bill slow to die anyway?
>> probably at this point, I would say it's slowly dying.
or rapidly dying, depending --
>> it is going to get legs by being amended on to a piece of legislation midweek before we have time to act.
>> that is another concern.
>> one of us will not vote to oppose it.
>> I move opposition to this bill.
>> I second, because it is all about local option.
it is not whether or not we like the bill says it is not our choice, it is locally.
>> all in favor of the motion?
so Commissioners Gomez, Huber, Eckhardt voting in favor.
all against shows the county judge, super majority rule says basically we take no official position.
>> if we need to, judge, we can bring it back to the start please do so.
>> as the session winds down.
>> thank you.
>> I'm trying to get caught up with where I am here.
f has congressional redistricting.
as you know, they're beginning to discuss plans that would affect Travis County.
Travis County is one of the largest counties in the state that does not have a congressman who is elected by the people in the county, where the majority of the voters for that congressman are not in the county.
we're still doing some analysis confirm that.
we may be one of the larger counties in the state so there is a lot of discussion about how to draw the maps for Travis County.
the question before the court is whether the court wants to sort of encourage drawing maps in such a way that Travis County does remain, you know, does maintain the opportunity to elect a representative who will be responsive to the needs of the people of Travis County.
>> currently, we're represent representedby three different representatives, proposals that split us as much as six ways.
>> yes.
and the -- even with the three representatives that we have, I think you can make the argument that none of the three of them has the population center of gravity of his or her district within Travis County.
and so it makes it hard for that represent -- you know, even though that representative is elected by some voters in Travis County, they're not dependent for their political future, if you will, upon keeping the people of Travis County happy.
and so in a sense, it really marginalizes Travis County's influence in the u.s.
congress.
and that's really the issue that we are looking at now.
>> I believe, I think I'm represented by lamar smith.
I think Commissioner Gomez is represented by representative dogitt and I think the judge is represented by representative mccall, we're that split?
>> resolution in opposition in our back up.
>> yes, sir, it is.
>> I move that we approve it.
>> second.
>> discussion?
the same position we took last time, basically, right?
last session?
>> yes.
>> same fight.
same uphill battle, basically.
>> right.
>> discussion on the motion?
>> do we need any legal counsel in executive session in regard to how this is playing out?
>> I think the resolution does enough for now, asks the county attorney's office review the matter, stay current and lay out possible options for the court at a future date.
I think the resolution does that well enough this was to remind, I think those people in the audience, this was a matter that the Commissioner's court chose was important enough to bring litigation last time and what we're seeing as possible options is even worse, carving up Travis County even further so I would expect that the Commissioner's court would have the same concerns to protect this county and this community of interest from further degradation.
>> they're utilizing the proponents of splitting the districts even further, are utilizing the voting rights act as their in my opinion, trojan horse.
>> I think some of them are hoping to use some of those arguments that this is somehow more favorable to certain groups, but the overall.
pact to Travis County as a whole, I think, hasn't changed much from the last time that you've entered into this issue, and that will be something that actually analyze for you, those legal arguments at a future date so we can be prepared.
>> I think it will lead to dilution, not really -- so that's not a proper use, so okay.
>> the lawyers only, remain on alert.
>> we will.
>> all in favor?
that passes by a unanimous vote.
the next item, judge is last week the court took a position on two policy issues tied legislation.
one was house bill 3254 which is to create a renewable energy reinvestment zone in the city of Pflugerville and the legislation was drafted in such a way that Travis County could participate in any tax insentives offered by the city of Pflugerville or retain its own flexibility it as already has to cut its own deal and work its own arrangement with those and give 10/does protect the county's autonomy, the court expressed support for that concept and asked for a resolution that effect so that's in your back up.
also, senate bill 878 which was legislation that would limit the ability of our criminal district judges to use cash deposit bonds as a vehicle for jail population management and for giving people access to legal counsel.
what has happened on that bill is there was an agreement struck on Friday with senator witmire's office to take the provisions that were objectionable to the county out of the bill, but unfortunately, that agreement came unraveled over the weekend, so this morning we were over at the committee working against the bill as was and we will continue working against the bill.
we're told senator witmire and madden, the house sponsor of the bill, we would very much like to work with them but our judges earn opposed to the bill as it is currently drafted and it really has implications for the county as a wheel in particular with jail population management so part of why I was over at the capital this morning was trying to steer that bill in the correct direction.
>> hb 3254 is a financial incentives bill?
>> yes, sir.
>> it is what we asked you for.
>> yes, sir, you asked for a resolution support of it.
>> is there a motion?
>> I move approval of the resolution for hb 3254.
>> second.
>> discussion on a motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
what did we say last week about 878, just that we joined the criminal judges and we don't like to either?
>> in opposition to it, yes.
for the court it not only affects how the criminal justice do that business but probably implications for us in terms of jail population management and defense cost.
so we oppose the bill on those grounds.
>> okay.
>> move approval of the resolution for senate bill 878.
>> second.
>> I have copies of those resolutions, but where are the originals?
>> I believe cheryl has them.
>> my office?
>> actually check.
yes, sir.
>> I've got a stack here but I thought they were all for 15-b.
>> let us confirm that.
we'll make sure that the originals of those resolutions are in front of the court some time today.
>> here is another one.
>> there you go.
>> yeah.
>> I think we have one more.
we have a change to one and we have another resolution, I guess not another resolution but a change -- yeah, we do, sorry.
trying to keep up with it so we have a change to one and another resolution draft for the court.
>> any more discussion?
the motion to oppose 878.
>> I'm sorry, I'm 878.
>> please come forward.
this is on 878, right?
>> no, I imagine it's on --
>> beg your pardon?
motion on 878.
which is g.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
and you here on 15-d?
>> yes, sir.
>> what did do we on 15-d?
>> we took no action, just updated the court on the status of the legislation.
>> you have brief comments?
>> I do.
>> please come forth and give them.
okay, on 15-d there are multiple pieces of legislation.
>> yes, judge.
five bills filed that would deal with it, three of which I think are still out there thrashing around.
>> okay.
>> okay.
thank you very much.
my name is Karen renick.
I am the founder and codirector of a group called "vote rescue" and lead partner with a 115-member coalition called the "hand count coalition." I apologize I didn't come last week, I didn't realize you remember discussing this when the county clerk was here so I guess consider my comments perhaps inconjunction with whatever she said last week and I also have not seen the transcript oar viewed the video.
but I just wanted to go on record that voting centers, if we just boil it down, if we observe sort of the trend that our voting processes are taking, it's yet one more step in terms of centralizing and making our voting process one that is much more impersonal it it remove it is from the individual communities, the precinct level, and in order to really, truly get back to public elections, which is really what we need to be doing, but what I mean by public election is public election as defined constitutionally is one in which the citizens are able to publicly observe every step of the process.
and the than voting centers don't that definition is that in order to use voting centers, I'm sure you know the county clerk explained this, for one, the number of voting locations would be drastically reduced.
I believe the bills are saying they would have to be no less than 50% of the current number of precincts that are currently being used but still that is a drastic reduction.
and what they do is in order for people to vote at any of these voting centers, it means that it relies totally on electronic voting and specifically direct record electronic voting.
and as you know from our numerous appearances here at the court, dr es constitute secret vote counting, which does not meet the definition of a public election.
I also want to just in terms of looking at the various aspects of these bills, now, I was only looking at the two bills that were listed on the agenda today, I was not aware there were three additional bills or the amendment he was talking about, but I do want to say that it appears that the authority for going to voting centers does rest in your hands as the county Commissioners, and so I do want to stress that you all look at a lot of the information that has come out of the so-called pilot projects that have been held there was quite a bit of information out of collin county that I think is very interesting.
I don't know if the county clerk brought this to your attention last week but in my research, there was -- dr. Robert stine of russe university was pulled into collin county to evaluate their experience with going to voting centers, and there's some interesting observations that were made from that process, and just wanted to, for the record and for anyone that might be listening out in the county, that his report shows that basically there was lower turn out on election day when they went to voting centers.
as compared to some adjacent counties that they used as sort of a control county.
and that the waiting time was greater for voters in collin county using the voting centers.
what tended to happen was that there was clumping of voters at a smaller number of voting centers and they could not accommodate for the incoming flux of volters.
and there were problems reported with the software that was used to check the voter's registration status.
I don't know what the county uses, I don't know whether they use a program called, I think it is called "vote smart" or vote -- let me tsao see if I can find it.
>> if you leave us one copy of that, we will make other copies and distribute it to the court.
>> my printer wasn't working great so what I would like to do --
>> send it to me electronically.
>> okay.
but I think these are important things for you all to be aware of.
the other thing is that in looking through arms related to this -- articles related to this issue about voting centers, I came you a crossing is s interesting, this was a report that was done I think it was based on experiences in collin county, I will include this but I wanted to make note of it this is from November of '08.
numerous problems with the -- excuse me, not poll workers but the election judges were often times denying people the right to vote because they were confused about what id people had to show.
and I know this gets off into that area of voter id, but when it's related to this issue of going to voting centers.
no longer are you really dealing with your community at your precinct where a lot of your poll workers, you know your community and now you're faced with strangers coming in and you have to rely totally on this data base of information, which we know has flaws and can have problems or people's status can be incorrectly, you know, input into this.
but there is this one comment in this article which I hadn't come across before, I wanted to raise it, is that Texas election law grant as full and absolute right to election poll watchers.
I'm sorry, what was happening in these polling places, the poll watchers designated by various parties were being denied access to watch various parts of the process.
particularly when a voter's status was being questioned.
so this point was brought up in this article where the Texas election law grants the full and absolute -- excuse me, poll watchers to observe all elections processes, except the actual voting by a voter, and these are, I just wanted to briefly, the two institutes of that are cited in this article it says that except as provided in section 33, a watcher is entitled to observe any activity conducted at the location of which the watcher is serving.
a watcher is entired to sit or stand conveniently near the election officials conducting the observed activity.
and then there is a follow-up provision that says a person commits an offense if the person serves in an official capacity at a location at which the presence of watchers is authorized and knowingly prevent as watcher from observing an activity, the watcher is entitled to open.
the offense under this action, sanction is a class-a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail or up to 4,000 fine.
>> that has something to do with the voting center's legislation?
>> well, in the sense that voting centers perhaps will create a lot of this problem, but it does also tie in to my first basic observation in that voting centers is this one more step in this move away from keeping voting a public process.
>> okay, we were told that we would go from 189 locations to 175.
that we reduce it by 14.
that's a whole lot of places to vote.
so you can go to your own voting place or you can go to any of the others.
so we saw that as greater flexibility, but we can't do anything unless the legislature passes one of these bills.
so your time may be better spent at the legislature rather than here.
>> no, because it is ultimately going to come back to you guys.
>> any concluding remarks?
>> in discovering these provisions about observing, I think it behooves the court to take serious that if a part of the vote process is being denied, a poll watcher would be able to watch such as the vote counting which is what is happening now with the machines that perhaps there are, you know, could be legal repercussions to that.
>> okay, thank you.
>> thank you very much.
>> 21 days remaining in session, judge.
>> we have three more golden opportunities to review legislation.
>> yes, sir.
>> we can hardly wait for the next one.
>> thank you very much.
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.
