By Elna Christopher
Director of Media Relations
Several county officials testified against a 5 percent revenue cap bill during a March 21 hearing in Senate Finance, and many other county officials and county representatives signed in against the bill. SB 720 by Sen. Tommy Williams (R-The Woodlands) — which was left pending in committee for now — 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.
The Texas Association of Counties (TAC) was represented by President and Roberts County Judge Vernon Cook and TAC Vice President and Travis County Constable Bruce Elfant. Cook also sent a letter to the committee in which he said, “I am at a loss to understand why we in local government are continually threatened with different kinds of revenue and appraisal caps. Bear in mind, the fact that we already have ‘caps.’ We have the 8 percent rollback rate.”
Williamson County Judge Dan Gattis testified for the Conference of Urban Counties, as well as representatives of the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas and Texas Municipal League. Five other county officials from various-sized counties around the state and several city officials and staff also testified.
Sen. Williams asked one judge from a rural county, Concho County Judge Allen Amos, if he would support the bill if small entities were carved out, to which Amos replied no, because larger counties have the same budget problems as small counties. Amos then reminded the committee that at least 60 percent of county budgets go toward public safety.
SB 720 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.
If the aforementioned 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, as Jefferson County Judge Jeff Branick noted when he told the committee his county is still paying for the aftermath of Hurricane Rita in 2005.
As Travis County Auditor Susan Spataro pointed out, 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.
Lubbock County Commissioner Patti Jones reminded the committee that legislators are raising concerns about federal mandates being passed to the state and said the state’s lowering the revenue cap to five percent on local governments “violates that same principle.”
Parker County Commissioner John Roth discussed the effective tax rate (ETR) and how his county’s ETR is being driven down by the higher mineral values of the Barnet Shale, yet his county must deal with the heavy damage to roads caused by the drilling activities.
The bill does not address 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 Paul Emerson
TAC State Financial Analyst
The House Appropriations Committee finalized its version of the General Appropriations Act (CSHB 1) this past week by allocating an additional $8.1 billion in all funds to the baseline House bill. As of now, $164.5 billion is appropriated in CSHB 1 for the next two years, which represents a decrease of $22.9 billion, or 12.3 percent, from the current biennium (2010-11).
Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee Jim Pitts (R-Waxahachie) expects to have CSHB 1 on the House floor by Friday, April 1. House members will have only the next few days to analyze CSHB 1 and prepare floor amendments. Each legislative session hundreds of amendments are filed to CSHB 1, but only a small percentage of them are actually adopted. During the last budget shortfall in 2003, for example, more than 325 amendments were filed for various projects and programs. In the past, amendments had to be revenue neutral — not causing the budget to increase. Normally, the Senate as a whole passes the General Appropriations Act without any floor amendments.
The TAC County Information Project is currently updating the 19-page budget summary report which will include changes from CSHB 1. This report will be available on the TAC website several days before CSHB 1 is presented on the House floor. For more information, contact Paul Emerson, TAC state financial analyst, at (800) 456-5974 or via email at Paule@county.org.
By Rick Thompson
Senior Legislative Liaison
The House County Affairs Committee heard testimony on HJR 89 by Rep. Garnet Coleman (D-Houston) on March 24. The legislation is a constitutional amendment that would prohibit most future unfunded mandates from being placed on counties. It is different from HJR 56 by Rep. Burt Solomons (R-Carrollton) because Coleman’s constitutional amendment relates only to counties, not any other local government entities.
Coleman, serving his second term as County Affairs chairman, said House Joint Resolution 89 is “a very important piece of legislation” in light of state budget cuts. “In this session, where the dollars are limited, programs end up getting cut or the cost gets passed on to someone else,” Coleman said.
County organizations, including the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas, the Conference of Urban Counties and the Texas Association of Counties, were at the hearing to support HJR 89.
Coleman filed the same legislation last session and continues to be a true friend to counties and a dedicated leader seeking to prevent more mandates, especially in his role as County Affairs chair. HJR 89, which would take effect in 2012 if voters approve it in November, was left pending in committee for now, but look forward to the committee’s approval in the near future.
For more information on HJR 89, contact Rick Thompson at (800) 456-5974 or Rickt@county.org.
See related article on HJR 56.
By Laura Garcia
Deputy Legislative Director
On March 22, the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence considered HB 189 by Rep. Todd Smith (R-Euless), a bill which would authorize the additional sentencing option of deferred adjudication for certain first-time DWI offenders and potentially help ease crowded court dockets and county jails.
Under the provisions of the legislation as filed, a defendant receiving a sentence of deferred adjudication for certain DWI offenses would be required to have an ignition interlock device installed in his or her vehicle as part of the terms of the sentence. Additionally, a deferred adjudication sentence could still be used for the purpose of enhancing future penalties for subsequent intoxication offenses.
At the hearing, committee members heard from numerous witnesses, including prosecutors, judges, and a representative of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who testified in support of the legislation. In testimony, Richard Alpert, an assistant district attorney with Tarrant County, discussed the need for this additional sentencing tool for prosecutors. He indicated that in Tarrant County, for example, the majority of first-time DWI offenders opt for a jail sentence over probation, and the deferred adjudication sentencing option would likely motivate more of these defendants to accept this sentence in lieu of jail time and receive treatment to help prevent subsequent offenses.
In written testimony, Judge David Hodges, TAC’s judicial projects director, said that “the passage of this bill will make it possible again for us to place a substantial majority of DWI defendants on probation, more closely monitor their drinking and driving activities for a longer period of time, and offer evidence-based educational and counseling programs intended to change future behavior.”
The legislation, however, as introduced, does have a financial hurdle. The bill’s fiscal note presently indicates a potential $7.5 million negative impact to the state for the next biennium. The impact is due to the aspects of the legislation which would allow defendants placed on deferred adjudication to bypass the Driver Responsibility Program surcharges, as well costs relating to the increased workload to the Department of Public Safety as a result of the ignition interlock device mandate proposed by the bill. A representative of the Dallas County Adult Probation Department also testified to potential increased costs for their department relating to the additional monitoring of defendants with ignition interlock devices installed in their vehicles. Smith indicated that he was working with stakeholders to address the negative fiscal impact to the state.
The bill was left pending by the committee.
By Elna Christopher
Director of Media Relations
House State Affairs passed out a committee substitute to HJR 56 on March 24, after hearing testimony on March 9, with numerous county officials and organizations testifying in favor of it.
The committee substitute makes it crystal clear that the constitutional amendment does not include school districts, which has been a sticking point with some House members.
By 11 a.m. March 25, the Texas Association of Counties (TAC) had received 223 resolutions from counties supporting HJR 56, the unfunded mandates constitutional amendment by Rep Burt Solomons (R-Carrollton).
Many of the remaining 31 counties have either passed the resolution and said they will send it to TAC or have set the resolution on their next meeting agendas, so we are optimistic that all 254 counties will show solid support for the prohibition against most future unfunded state mandates. Please either e-mail a signed copy to elanc@county.org or fax to Elna at (512) 478-3573.
Here is the sample resolution in case you need it.
As of 11 a.m. March 25, there are 88 House members signed on to support HJR 56. If your representative is on this 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.
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.
After every decennial census, the Legislature attempts to reconcile population bracket statutes. This process includes the introduction of a bill, or bills, intended to address the shifting of population numbers and an analysis of those bills to ensure that the population brackets still apply to an intended county or counties.
The first of these adjustment bills introduced during the 82nd Texas Legislature is SB 1246, by Sen. Kevin Eltife (R-Tyler). SB 1246 primarily addresses bracket groups that include five or fewer counties. SB 1246 also focuses, generally, on the larger, urban counties and the associated statutorily encompassing populations. SB 1246 is the first bill of this type and more are expected in the near future.
The TAC County Information Project and Legislative Department produced an analytical table of SB 1246 which indicates the applicable section of the bill, the counties indicated by the brackets, the new population numbers, the relevant statute being amended and a description of sections actions.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the bill analysis, please contact TAC legislative staff Bruce Barr at bruceb@county.org or Nanette Forbes at nanettef@county.org or (800) 456-5974.