By Elna Christopher
Director of Media Relations
The first hearing of the session on a revenue cap bill will be held at 10 a.m. Monday, March 21, in Senate Finance, Room E1.036 of the Capitol Extension.
A number of county officials will testify or sign in regarding the harmful bill. If you are in Austin Monday, we encourage you to make your voice heard.
SB 720 by Sen. Tommy Williams (R-The Woodlands) would severely restrict local governments from making local determinations on how much revenue is necessary to provide services — including unfunded and under-funded mandates. The bill would lower the rollback rate to 5 percent unless certain harsh conditions are met, such as natural disasters that have already occurred.
Counties would only be able to go to an 8 percent rollback rate if any part of the taxing unit is located in an area declared a disaster area by the governor or the president of the United States during the current tax year, or the governing body finds that a higher tax rate is necessary to protect the health, safety or property of persons residing in the taxing unit.
Even as counties continue their quest for a constitutional amendment prohibiting future unfunded mandates and to stop state budget cuts from turning into more unfunded mandates, some legislators would prefer to lower the 8 percent rollback rate.
This bill would not allow for growth planning, road construction to meet the demands of growth, unforeseen cost drivers such as capital murder trials or mandated needs such as new jail construction. It could mean depletion of reserve funds that would lower bond ratings which would cost taxpayers more in the long run.
Problems with the bill are numerous. If the natural disaster — be it a hurricane, tornado or huge wildfire — has already occurred, your county is undoubtedly spending funds from this year’s budget that were budgeted to deliver other services. What happens to the services from which budget money is borrowed for the natural disaster? This puts your county behind the eight-ball even before it’s time to set next year’s budget and tax rate.
Just what is meant by the term “to protect the health, safety or property of persons residing in the taxing unit?” Does building a new jail to meet the burden of growth and the regulations of the Jail Standards Commission fall into the definition? Does a capital murder trial fit the definition? Does new road construction to help ease traffic gridlock match up with the definition?
The bill does not address the fallout counties will feel from proposed state budget cuts that could force counties and their taxpayers to pick up more of the tab for state programs such as adult and juvenile probation or caring for the mentally ill when there are no state hospital beds for them.
Nor does the bill address the local control issues regarding “quality-of-life” services such as libraries, parks and restoration of historic courthouses that make our communities more dynamic and livable.
TAC has prepared a one-page document detailing some of the problems.
By Laura Nicholes
TAC Legislative Staff
House Corrections Chairman Jerry Madden has filed HB 3617, which seeks to consolidate the Texas Commission on Jail Standards (TCJS), Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education (TCLEOSE) and the Texas Commission on Fire Protection into one agency, the Public Safety Licensing Commission.
Governor Rick Perry announced this recommendation in February. As filed, the new Public Safety Licensing Commission would require a new board comprised of nine public appointments made by the governor and restructuring of the three agencies.
County officials will not have representation on the new agency board and will not have a voice concerning regulatory decisions directly impacting counties and related constitutional minimum jail standards.
Additionally, HB 3617 eliminates important services currently provided by the agency; the division overseeing county jails would be enforcement-oriented. Under the bill, counties will no longer have access to valuable services such as construction plan reviews, staffing and facility needs analyses, population projections and trends reports and various other forms of technical assistance serving the best interests of counties.
TCJS Should Remain a Stand-Alone Agency
The Commission on Jail Standards (TCJS) helps counties stay in compliance with state and federal jail requirements and standards, limiting county liability and saving taxpayer dollars. Currently, county officials serve as members of the commission, ensuring that the county voice is heard during the regulatory process.
In the past, counties have supported TCJS as a stand-alone agency, fully funded and capable of effectively assisting counties, in the overall best interest of counties, taxpayers, jail employees and jail inmates. Consolidating TCJS into a one-size-fits-all agency with unrelated regulatory purposes will end the county voice in regulating county jails. It will erode the commission’s ability to provide necessary, highly-specialized assistance and customer service to county jail operations.
By Elna Christopher
Director of Media Relations
Support continues to swell among Texas counties for HJR 56, the unfunded mandates constitutional amendment filed by Rep Burt Solomons (R-Carrollton).
As of noon Friday, March 18, the Texas Association of Counties (TAC) had received resolutions from 208 counties. If your county has already passed a resolution but there is no date of passage on this list for you, that means TAC has not received it. So please either e-mail a signed copy to elnac@county.org or fax to Elna Christopher at (512) 478-3573.
If your county has not yet passed a resolution, please set it on your next commissioners court agenda. Here is a sample for you. Otherwise, TAC will soon be phoning your county!
The calls that county officials are making to House members requesting their co-authorship of HJR 56 have been working. As of noon Friday, March 18, there are 84 House members signed on. Two lawmakers told a group of county judges visiting the Capitol on March 17 that they will sign on; another said he will not. So there still is follow-up and education to do with some legislators!
If your representative is on the list of lawmakers who have not signed on, please send him or her a copy of your resolution and ask for support as a co-author. Remember, it takes 100 votes to pass a constitutional amendment in the House. HJR 56 has been heard in House State Affairs and is still pending. The Senate companion, SJR 17 by Sen. John Carona (R-Dallas) has been referred to Senate State Affairs, but no hearing has been set yet.
By Laura Nicholes
TAC Legislative Staff
The House State Affairs voted HB 12, as substituted, favorably from committee on March 14. This bill prohibits a county from receiving state grant funds if the county adopts a rule, order, ordinance or policy under which the county prohibits the enforcement of immigration laws or, by consistent actions, prohibits the enforcement of these laws.
The substitute bill removes school districts, open-charter enrollment schools and junior college districts from a potential loss of funding if they have policies prohibiting the enforcement of state or federal laws relating to immigrants or immigration. The substitute also removes the governor’s authority to issue uniform guidelines among state agencies for implementing the withholding of state grant funds to entities which do not comply. A provision was also added to allow citizens living in a jurisdiction to file a complaint with the attorney general if they believe the jurisdiction has a policy contrary to the enforcement of state and federal immigration laws; the bill as originally filed permitted the attorney general to initiate a writ of mandamus to compel an entity to enforce the laws.
Also voted favorably from House State Affairs on March 9 was a substitute to HB 183 by Rep. Burt Solomons (R-Carrollton). As filed, HB 183 mandates that a law enforcement agency verify the immigration status of any person it arrests within 48 hours and before that person is released on bond. The committee substitute differs from the original by applying the requirements only to a law enforcement agency that has custody of an arrested person, rather than a law enforcement agency that arrests the person.
The substitute also differs from the original by requiring the law enforcement agency to request information regarding an arrested person's immigration status, rather than requiring the agency to have the immigration status verified. Additionally, the substitute requires the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to be notified that the person is in the custody of the law enforcement agency if the information received reveals certain facts regarding the person's immigration status; the original bill required the law enforcement agency to notify ICE of the results of a verification if ICE did not already have the results.
By Paul Emerson
TAC State Financial Analyst
The House Appropriations Committee will finalize its version of the General Appropriations Act (HB 1) during the next few days in order to meet various deadlines imposed by the House Rules. The committee is required to report HB 1 to the House floor by the 90th day of the session, which is April 11. HB 1 must be distributed to each House member at least seven days before it may be considered on second reading and it usually takes five days to print HB 1 for all members, meaning the committee must actually vote out the bill in late March. Unlike the House, the Senate budget procedures are not that complicated; SB 1 follows the same rules that apply to all other legislation before the Senate.
Other major budget items being heard in the House Appropriations Committee include the supplemental appropriations bill (HB 4) that reduces various agencies’ current fiscal year by $1.27 billion and the economic stabilization bill (HB 275), also known as the Rainy Day Fund, of which $4.27 billion will be used to offset the current budget shortfall in FY2011.
Senate Finance Subcommittee on Medicaid, Public Education
In the past week, the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Medicaid heard invited public testimony from Health and Human Services agencies. Subcommittee Chair Sen. Jane Nelson (R-Flower Mound) recommended that any items deemed critical be held in a place-holder until additional funding can be appropriated to SB 1. It is anticipated that the Subcommittee on Medicaid will have to reduce Article II agencies’ funding by $9 billion for the next budget cycle. In addition, the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Public Education is also anticipated to reduce funds to public education by at least $4 billion, if not more.
Continuing the Process
Assuming HB 1 is voted favorably out of the House Appropriations Committee before the end of March, members in both chambers will have less than nine weeks remaining to pass a budget this session. The Senate Finance Committee typically adopts the House version of the budget and votes out SB 1 as a committee substitute. Any variation between the two appropriations bills will trigger House Rule 13, sec. 9(b) and Senate Rule 12.04, which allows a conference committee to be appointed to reconcile the different sections of the bill.
During the remainder of the session, the TAC County Information Project will provide periodic updates on HB 1/SB 1 and other significant appropriation bills as they proceed through the legislative process.
For more information, contact Paul Emerson, TAC state financial analyst, at (800) 456-5974 or via email at paule@county.org.
By Nanette Forbes
TAC Legislative Staff
Senate State Affairs heard SB 100 on March 14, a bill that could prompt significant changes to the elections calendar for primary elections and general local government elections conducted in May.
The bill, authored by Sen. Leticia Van de Putte (D-San Antonio), aims to bring Texas election laws into compliance with the requirements of the federal Military Overseas Voters Empowerment Act (MOVE) to allow military and overseas voters sufficient time to vote in elections.
However, changing the primary filing deadline to December to accommodate military mail-in ballots poses a problem for certain district and county officers because it would require candidates to file applications earlier than they do under current law. Announcing their candidacy to run for a different office with more than one year remaining in the term would cause an automatic resignation of office due to the constitutional resign-to-run provision.
Jim Allison, general counsel for the County Judges & Commissioners Association of Texas, testified in opposition to moving the filing deadline.
“Moving the filing deadline to back into December creates a number of very serious problems,” Allison said.
Allison said the change would extend campaigns and reduce voter turnout. Most importantly, moving the filing deadline back will limit the number of candidates. Allison recommended looking carefully at other options.
Donald Lee, executive director of the Conference for Urban Counties, agreed with Allison and expressed preference for options that keep the filing deadline in the current year. Most important to his membership is pursuing compliance with the MOVE Act using the current election calendar.
Monday, the committee considered SJR 37 by Van de Putte, which was filed in an effort to resolve the resign-to-run effects of SB 100. The resolution would repeal Article XVI, Section 65, the resign-to-run constitutional provision.
Proposed significant changes to the election calendar compared to current law include:
Primary Filing Deadline: Dec. 5, 2011
(Current Law: Jan. 2, 2012)First day of early voting in person: Feb. 20, 2012
(Current Law: Feb. 20, 2012)Primary Election: March 6, 2012
(Current Law: March 6, 2012)Deadline to run as a write-in candidate for May election: March 12, 2012
(Current Law: March 19, 2012)Deadline to conduct ballot drawing for runoff: March 14, 2012
(Current Law: March 19, 2012)First day to vote early in the primary runoff AND for the May uniform election date: May 14, 2012
(Current Law: First day period to vote early in the primary runoff: April 2, 2012)Runoff primary election day AND May uniform election day: May 22, 2012
(Current Law: Runoff primary election day: April 10, 2012)
(Current Law: May uniform election day: May 12, 2012)Runoff date for May uniform election date: July 31, 2012
The fiscal note for SB 100 prepared by the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) reported “no significant fiscal implication to the state is anticipated.”
“Costs to counties would vary depending on the number of military personnel serving overseas who wish to vote but are not anticipated to be significant,” the LBB reported.
SB 100 and SJR 37 were left pending in committee.
“[We] will continue to try to work to build a consensus on where we are going,” said Sen. Robert Duncan, chair of Senate State Affairs.