County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas 2018 Resolutions

January 1, 2019 by Emily Lomax

The following resolutions were passed by the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas representing 254 counties in the State of Texas on October 11, 2018, during the Association’s Annual Conference.

1. Thanks to the Host Court

WHEREAS, the Annual Conference of the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas was conducted in Montgomery County, Texas, on Oct. 8-11, 2018; and

WHEREAS, the Honorable Commissioners Court of Montgomery County has hosted the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas in the most entertaining and excellent manner;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas expresses its wholehearted thanks and deep appreciation to the Honorable Court of Montgomery County for its courteous and warm hospitality extended to each of us.

2. Thanks to the Conference Sponsors and Exhibitors

WHEREAS, the Annual Conference of the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas was conducted in Montgomery County, Texas, on Oct. 8-11, 2018; and

WHEREAS, the many sponsors and exhibitors provide significant financial support for the conference and the Association; and

WHEREAS, the sponsors and exhibitors provide valuable information to our members;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas expresses its deep appreciation to our generous conference sponsors and exhibitors.

3. Thanks to State and Local Associations and Friends of County Government

WHEREAS, the Annual Conference of the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas was conducted in Montgomery County, Texas, on Oct. 8-11, 2018; and

WHEREAS, the members of the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas wish to acknowledge the expertise of and thank the staff of: James Allison of Allison, Bass & Magee, LLP; the Texas Association of Counties and Executive Director Gene Terry; the Texas Association of Regional Councils and Executive Director Ginny Lewis; the V.G. Young Institute of County Government, a part of Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, and Executive Director Dr. Peter McGuill; the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service agents’ professional associations; County Progress Magazine and Editor Julie Anderson; and the many other state and local associations and people who have all been so helpful to county government;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Association thanks all of these individuals and their staffs for their past, present and future help on behalf of county government.

4. Memorial to Deceased Officials and Special Friends

WHEREAS, the following highly regarded members and friends of the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas are deceased; and

WHEREAS, the Association desires to pay appropriate respect to these members and friends; and

WHEREAS, since our last conference, the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas has mourned the passing of:

West Texas Region

Former Ector County Commissioner Bob Bryant

Former Taylor County Commissioner Nowlin ‘Corky’ Cox

Crane County Judge John Farmer

Former Lipscomb County Commissioner John David Fritzlen

Hall County Commissioner James Fuston Sr.

Wilbarger County Commissioner Richard Jacobs

Former Hutchinson County Commissioner Murry Jennings

Former Potter County Commissioner Iris Elaine Sanders Lawrence

Former Terry County Judge and Commissioner Don Robertson

Former Irion County Commissioner Elder Wayne Smith

Lipscomb County Commissioner Johnie Dale Steele

Former Palo Pinto County Judge Mickey Dayle West

North & East Texas Region

Hunt County Judge John Lyman Horn

Grimes County Commissioner Gary Alan Husfeld

Cooke County Commissioner Billy Carl “B.C.” Lemons

Former Trinity County Commissioner Jessie Dean Price

Former Kaufman County Commissioner Jerry Rowden

Former Hamilton County Commissioner Raymond Eldor Wenzel

Former Lamar County Commissioner Jackie Wheeler

South Texas Region

Atascosa County Commissioner Lon “Lonnie” Gillespie

Former Blanco County Commissioner Robert Arvene Mauck Sr.

Starr County Commissioner Raul (Roy) Pena, Jr.

Former Jim Wells County Judge L. Arnoldo Saenz

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas members pause for a moment of silence and meditation to honor the memory of these respected individuals.

5. Opposition to Unfunded Mandates

WHEREAS, Texas counties are responsible for the operation and management of many and various governmental programs as required or authorized by state law; and

WHEREAS, some county government programs are fully or partially supported with funds disbursed by the State of Texas pursuant to the state appropriations process; and

WHEREAS, the State of Texas, acting through the Texas Legislature or through a state agency or executive order, may enact laws or promulgate rules that have the effect of imposing mandatory financial obligations upon Texas counties; and

WHEREAS, the State of Texas, through the Texas Legislature or through a state agency or executive order, mandates that counties implement certain governmental programs or perform certain duties and obligations including financial commitments by a county to expend county funds in connection therewith; and

WHEREAS, during each regular session of the Texas Legislature, all state funds that support county programs are reviewed through the state appropriation process and by other state budgetary review systems; and

WHEREAS, the aforementioned review process may result in a reduction, or cessation, of state financial support of county government programs causing an unforeseeable disruption and reduction of the county budget and operations; and

WHEREAS, Texas counties cannot achieve reliable financial planning and the necessary bond ratings sufficient to support county-related obligations when the state mandates a new program that is not fully funded or under conditions where the state reduces or fully withdraws prior funding and disbursement for county government programs;

NOW, THEREFORE, the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas and its 254 current member counties do hereby resolve that for the foregoing reasons, it is in the best interests of Texas counties and their taxpayers to support and favor the passage of legislation in the form of an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Texas that would expressly prohibit the imposition of a mandatory governmental program on Texas counties, whether by an act of the Texas Legislature or a state agency or by executive order, unless the State of Texas has fully funded and disbursed all necessary funds to enable Texas counties to operate said governmental program.

6. Support for Local Decision-Making and Opposition to Revenue Caps

WHEREAS, the Texas Legislature has previously considered and rejected proposals for additional revenue caps on counties; and

WHEREAS, 54 percent of the average taxpayer’s property tax burden is due to school taxes while only 16 percent is due to county taxes; and

WHEREAS, revenue caps would diminish local decision-making and tie the hands of county officials and limit their ability to provide essential services to address the needs and emergencies of their citizens; and

WHEREAS, county government is already struggling to meet the demands of under-funded and unfunded state mandates such as indigent health care and indigent defense and federal mandates such as the Help America Vote Act and the Clean Air Act; and

WHEREAS, the demands on county budgets continue to increase including health care, motor fuel, road materials, and all other products and services purchased by counties; and

WHEREAS, artificial revenue caps will result in a shift of taxes from fluctuating properties to those remaining relatively stable in value, such as residential properties; and

WHEREAS, revenue caps will not necessarily result in a reduction of property taxes but will result in a severe impact on county services; and

WHEREAS, it would be inequitable for the Texas Legislature to impose additional revenue caps on local governments without alternative funding sources and unfunded mandate relief;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas does hereby express its opposition to efforts to limit local decision-making and does hereby oppose any attempts to impose revenue caps upon Texas counties, and the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas expresses its deep appreciation to all legislators who oppose these unsound measures.

7. County Local Option Revenue Sources

WHEREAS, county revenue sources are extremely limited; and

WHEREAS, under current statutes, counties are forced to rely upon property taxes to fund necessary services; and

WHEREAS, county taxpayers should have the option to adopt a local sales tax, a local severance tax, a local motor fuel tax, an increase in local vehicle registration fees, and other revenue sources to reduce property taxes;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas requests that the Legislature amend the tax statutes to allow the adoption of a county local option sales tax, a local option severance tax, a local option motor fuel tax, an increase in local vehicle registration fees, and other revenue sources for the reduction of property taxes without imposing any additional revenue caps.

8. Indigent Health Care

WHEREAS, revisions have been proposed regarding the Texas system of indigent health care; and

WHEREAS, some revisions propose an assessment upon counties to support a regional indigent health care system; and

WHEREAS, such assessment would constitute an unfunded mandate, requiring property tax increases in those counties; and

WHEREAS, such regional systems would not be efficient or responsive to local taxpayers; and

WHEREAS, the present Section 1115 Waiver provides voluntary opportunities to participate in health care innovation projects;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas opposes any attempt to impose a mandatory assessment upon Texas counties to fund a regional or statewide health care system and instead supports the continuation of the voluntary Section 1115 grants.

9. State Funds for Indigent Criminal Defense

WHEREAS, the right to assistance by legal counsel is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution; and

WHEREAS, the State of Texas is required to implement this right and provide legal counsel to indigent criminal defendants; and

WHEREAS, the Texas Fair Defense Act, adopted by the Texas Legislature in 2001, implements this right and requires certain procedures and attorney appointments; and

WHEREAS, the Texas Legislature has failed to provide sufficient funding to offset the additional costs of the Fair Defense Act and has shifted this cost to county taxpayers; and

WHEREAS, county expenditures for indigent criminal defense have increased over 140 percent since the adoption of the Fair Defense Act; and

WHEREAS, the state funding is totally inadequate, providing approximately 12 percent of the indigent defense costs; and

WHEREAS, indigent criminal defense is a state responsibility that should be adequately funded on a statewide basis, not a burden overwhelmingly borne by local property taxpayers; and

WHEREAS, the Texas Legislature has failed to appropriate current funds that are committed by statute to the Indigent Defense Fund;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas does hereby request that the Texas Legislature fully fund the costs of indigent criminal defense, which has cost local taxpayers over $2.6 billion from 2001 through 2017, and immediately release all funds in the Indigent Defense Fund for distribution.

10. Juvenile Probation Funding

WHEREAS, the supervision of juvenile offenders is a responsibility of the State of Texas; and

WHEREAS, the Texas Legislature has consistently failed to appropriate sufficient funding to meet this responsibility; and

WHEREAS, Texas counties have increasingly met this burden by funding juvenile probation services and facilities; and

WHEREAS, Texas counties and their local taxpayers are now providing over 75 percent of the costs of juvenile probation; and

WHEREAS, current state funding formulas will continue to shift additional costs to county taxpayers unless addressed by the State of Texas;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas does hereby request that the Texas Legislature fully fund the costs of supervision of juvenile offenders, including the costs for juvenile probation services.

11. Mental Health Patients

WHEREAS, Texas counties are being forced to hold mentally incompetent prisoners for up to six months while awaiting court-ordered transfer to a state mental facility for treatment; and

WHEREAS, each of these pre-trial inmates costs the local taxpayer approximately $9,000 during this period of incarceration; and

WHEREAS, the county jail is not an appropriate facility for the mentally ill, and these prisoners pose a high risk of injury to themselves, the jail staff and other prisoners; and

WHEREAS, a State District Court in Travis County ordered the Department of Health Services to receive these prisoners within 21 days of a judge’s order; and

WHEREAS, instead of accepting its responsibility, the state appealed this order; and

WHEREAS, this delay by the State is increasing the cost to our taxpayers and continuing this improper practice;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas hereby requests that the State of Texas implement additional funding for mental health services and implement the state mental health plan to ensure the efficient and effective use of these resources, and accept all mentally incompetent inmates within 21 days of their court-ordered transfer.

12. Opposition to Diversion of Dedicated Funds

WHEREAS, the Legislature has committed certain funds for dedicated purposes; and

WHEREAS, unfortunately these funds have been improperly withheld from these needed functions and used to balance the general state budget; and

WHEREAS, the state leadership has proposed to end this diversion of funds;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas expresses its opposition to any state diversion of dedicated funds and supports the state leadership’s commitment to end this practice.

13. Emergency Services Program

WHEREAS, citizens of Texas desire access to 9-1-1 emergency services in an efficient manner, as evidenced by approval of the monthly fee on business and residential phone bills; and

WHEREAS, the 9-1-1 emergency services dispatch and response depend on equipment which must function reliably on a continuous basis; and

WHEREAS, older equipment reaches a point of being high maintenance and becomes unreliable; and

WHEREAS, technology continues to improve, necessitating upgrading hardware and software for reverse 9-1-1 services and other needs;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas urges our state legislators to provide full funding to the Emergency 9-1-1 Services Program for maintenance and improvement; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that funds generated by the 9-1-1 surcharge will not be used by the Legislature as money set aside to balance the state budget; and

BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that any such funds set aside be fully appropriated for the Emergency 9-1-1 Services Program.

14. Opposition to Granting Powers to Municipal Utility Districts and Special Utility Districts

WHEREAS, Texas is one of the fastest-growing states in the Union; and

WHEREAS, city government and county government should have appropriate authority to regulate growth in their respective counties and cities; and

WHEREAS, special water districts and private water corporations have the means to furnish water and provide for growth in rural areas of the counties; and

WHEREAS, municipal utility districts and special utility districts have been improperly used by certain developers to avoid compliance with county and city infrastructure plans;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas opposes the granting of additional powers to municipal utility districts and special utility districts and requests that the approval of the county be required before any further districts are created.

15. Support for County Road Grant Fund

WHEREAS, constitutional amendments have been approved by the voters to increase dedicated funding for public roadways; and

WHEREAS, these constitutional amendments provide additional funding to be used only for constructing, maintaining, and acquiring right of way for public roadways other than toll roads; and

WHEREAS, these constitutional amendments provide needed support for public highways without increasing taxes; and

WHEREAS, the county road system is eligible for assistance from this funding; and

WHEREAS, county roads are being devastated by overweight trucks to enhance the production of oil and gas; and

WHEREAS, the oil and gas severance tax should be equitably shared with counties to repair this damage; and

WHEREAS, the Economic Stabilization (Rainy Day) Fund has reached record levels through deposits from the oil and gas severance tax; and

WHEREAS, the appropriations from this Fund can be utilized to fund the repair and rehabilitation of county roads;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas does hereby request that additional funding be appropriated to support the county road grant program.

16. Uranium Mining Regulation

WHEREAS, uranium mining creates a special hazard for local groundwater; and

WHEREAS, uranium mining places a high demand upon local groundwater resources; and

WHEREAS, groundwater pollution by uranium mining cannot be recovered or rehabilitated and creates a permanent loss of groundwater; and

WHEREAS, county and groundwater conservation districts have very limited power to regulate uranium mining under current law;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas requests that state law be amended to require a due process permit proceeding and approval by the local Commissioners Court and groundwater conservation district before any permit is granted for uranium mining.

17. Sludge Waste Disposal

WHEREAS, human waste and other toxic materials are contained in municipal, domestic, and commercial sludge; and

WHEREAS, this sludge waste contains harmful bacteria, viruses and chemicals that may contaminate local water supplies; and

WHEREAS, the current rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality are inadequate to protect the water supply and adjacent landowners from the improper disposal of sludge waste; and

WHEREAS, disposal of these materials should be a matter of local regulation;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas hereby requests that no permits be issued for the disposal of sludge waste without the approval of the Commissioners Court and that the Texas Legislature clearly authorize local control of all sludge waste permits.

18. Fireworks Regulations

WHEREAS, counties currently have limited authority to regulate fireworks; and

WHEREAS, due to the continued danger of drought and the concern for public safety, such regulations are necessary to protect life and property;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas is opposed to any legislative action that would remove current county authority to regulate fireworks.

19. Oil and Gas Waste Disposal Facilities

WHEREAS, the Texas oil and gas industry is a vital part of our economy; and

WHEREAS, this industry requires the use of disposal facilities, such as waste injection wells, to operate in an efficient manner; and

WHEREAS, the operation of these disposal facilities can pose a substantial risk to the groundwater supply; and

WHEREAS, protection of the groundwater is also essential to the economy and health and safety of Texas citizens; and

WHEREAS, adequate information should be provided to Texas counties and their citizens to ensure the safe operation of oil and gas waste facilities and protection of the groundwater;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas does hereby request that the Texas Legislature and the Texas Railroad Commission require that Texas counties, their citizens, and groundwater conservation districts be provided all available information concerning proposed oil and gas waste facilities in their area and a full opportunity to participate in the evaluation of any application for additional facilities; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Texas Railroad Commission be required to evaluate and consider the full local infrastructure impact and effect on local communities before voting on any such permit.

20. Rural Public Transit

WHEREAS, 37 Rural Transit Districts serve all the counties throughout Texas; and

WHEREAS, Rural Transit Districts provide access to needed goods and services, jobs, and medical services throughout the rural counties of Texas; and

WHEREAS, Rural Transit Districts traveled 31,381,803 miles and provided 6,336,451 one-way trips to the citizens of rural Texas in 2014; and

WHEREAS, Rural Transit Districts have not received an increase in state funding since the year 2000; and

WHEREAS, on average, bus fleets for Rural Transit Districts are at 130 percent of their established lifecycle; and

WHEREAS, funding opportunities for large federal and state grants have historically left qualified rural projects underfunded; and

WHEREAS, without increased funding, in order to meet increasing service demands and costs in rural areas, services to those most in need in rural Texas will suffer;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas expresses its support for a meaningful increase in funding for Rural Transit Districts

21. Opposition to Rules Adopted by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles That Decrease County Revenues, Increase County Costs, and Reduce Local Control and Local Services

WHEREAS, the county tax assessor-collector is charged with collecting vehicle registration fees which provide for certain legislative authorized revenues to offset costs associated with collecting and dispersing these fees for the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles; and

WHEREAS, the 83rd State Legislature created the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Fund, authorized the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles to establish certain fees by board rule, authorized the board to direct certain fees to the fund, and allowed for county revenues to be set by board rule; and

WHEREAS, the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles has adopted rules setting title transfer and registration processing and handling fees for its own funding and has further adopted fees and changes for the county tax assessor-collectors and the various deputy classification types; and

WHEREAS, the county tax assessor-collector may deputize full-service title companies to provide titling and registration services and limited service companies to provide registration services, which increases access and locations for these services by citizens; and

WHEREAS, the rules adopted by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles will decrease county revenues, increase county cost, and reduce local control and local services;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas opposes the rules as adopted by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles amending Title 43 of the Texas Administrative Code Chapter 217.

22. Full Funding of DPS Labs

WHEREAS, the State of Texas through the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) provides for the testing of controlled and illegal substances for criminal cases; and

WHEREAS, while the service is valuable to the prosecutorial process, it is not timely as most tests require 6-9 months before results are rendered; and

WHEREAS, many alleged and formerly convicted violators must be released after 90 days with the high probability that they will reoffend and further endanger the public and further burden law enforcement; and

WHEREAS, the recent reduction in state funding will reduce the effectiveness of the DPS labs and result in further delays in the administration of justice;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas requests full funding, staffing and equipping of the DPS labs to return results in the required legal time to serve justice.

23. County Homestead Exemption

WHEREAS, the current constitutional provisions limit the ability of counties to a percentage of the appraised value of homesteads; and

WHEREAS, the current limitations prevent the adoption of a homestead exemption to provide greater benefit to lower-priced properties; and

WHEREAS, additional discretion should be granted to counties to determine the homestead exemption;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas requests that a constitutional amendment be adopted to allow counties to grant discretionary homestead exemptions based upon a dollar amount of the taxable value of the property.

24. Texas Department of Criminal Justice Inmates

WHEREAS, currently counties are required to hold inmates who have been committed to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) for up to 45 days; and

WHEREAS, counties are required to hold parolees who are awaiting a revocation hearing before the TDCJ Parole Board; and

WHEREAS, the TDCJ does not provide adequate transportation of its inmates from county jails to its facilities; and

WHEREAS, the cost to county taxpayers for the failure of the State of Texas to meet its responsibilities for state inmates is approximately $100 million per year;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas requests that the State of Texas fully reimburse counties for all costs incurred for the confinement and transport of TDCJ inmates.

25. Optional County Road and Bridge Fee

WHEREAS, the current maximum county optional road and bridge fee has been frozen at $10 since 1991; and

WHEREAS, the cost of construction and maintenance of the county road system has increased tremendously in recent years; and

WHEREAS, as the population of Texas continues to grow, the need for efficient county transportation systems will increase;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas requests that the maximum county optional road and bridge fee be raised to $20 per vehicle.

26. Voting Machine Costs

WHEREAS, the Federal Help America Vote Act requires that counties provide an electronic voting system at each voting location; and

WHEREAS, the current voting systems have serious security and maintenance issues; and

WHEREAS, replacement of these systems will require a great expenditure of public funds; and

WHEREAS, the purchase, programming of, and maintenance of these systems are state and federal responsibilities;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas requests full funding from the federal and state government for the replacement of all voting systems, programming, and maintenance.

27. Limitations on Registered Sex Offenders in Counties

WHEREAS, home rule municipalities have the authority by ordinance to provide for the public safety of their citizens to restrict a registered sex offender from going in, on, or within a specified distance of a child safety zone in the municipality; and

WHEREAS, general law municipalities now have the authority with the passage of HB 1111, enacted by the 85th Texas Legislature, effective September 1, 2017, to provide for the public safety of its citizens to restrict a registered sex offender from going in, on, or within a specified distance of a child safety zone in the municipality; and

WHEREAS, Texas counties should also be able to provide for the public safety of their citizens living outside the boundaries of any municipality by restricting a registered sex offender from going in, on, or within a specified distance of a child safety zone in the county; and

WHEREAS, no current statute authorizes a Texas county to enact an ordinance or order establishing a “Child Safety Zone” and restricting a registered sex offender from going in, on, or within a specified distance of a child safety zone in the county; and

WHEREAS, legislation is necessary to authorize counties to enact an ordinance or order to provide public safety for its citizens by placing limitations on registered sex offenders in the county;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas respectfully requests that the 86th Texas Legislature pass legislation providing Texas counties the authority to enact an ordinance or order regarding limitations on registered sex offenders in counties.

County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas

2018 Resolutions Committee

Anderson County Judge Robert Johnston – Chairman

Yoakum County Commissioner Tim Addison

Jasper County Judge Mark Allen

Cass County Commissioner Paul Cothren

Glasscock County Judge Kim Halfmann

Cherokee County Commissioner Byron Underwood

Kaufman County Judge Bruce Wood

In addition to the above-adopted resolutions, the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas Resolutions Committee requests that the following items be recommended for future study and consideration.

State funding to meet county cost of transport, autopsy, and disposition of dead bodies.
State responsibility for drug-resistant tuberculosis cases and HIV medications.

Maintain local control and recovery of cost of reproduction of clerk’s digitized records and e-filing.

Proper tax valuation of compressor equipment, refineries, and new oil and gas production facilities, and proper classification of new oil and gas interests to exclude such property from the effective tax rate.
Full funding for school vaccination program.
Require vehicles to reduce speed and/or yield a traffic lane to county road and bridge vehicles and equipment.
Require Commissioners Court representation on Regional Water Planning Groups.
Request legislation to require state reimbursement for court-appointed attorneys in child protective services cases.
Restore full funding for the Texas Historic Courthouse Preservation Grant Program.
State funding for all state special elections.
Additional funding for sales tax support on fireworks dedicated for local use.
More local authority on the regulation of fireworks.
Additional county authority over vehicle inspection and licensing procedures.
Local retention of asset forfeiture funds.
Prohibit abuse of the Public Information Act by excessive and burdensome requests.
Abolish the excessive driver’s license fees assessed under the Driver Responsibility Act while maintaining support for trauma centers and EMS.
Support and restore county authority to regulate all county buildings and property.
Support an exemption from state motor fuel taxes for county equipment and vehicles.
Affirm county control of weapons in county courthouses.
Support full state funding for lost revenue from disabled veterans and surviving spouses exemption.
Review of the equity of ad valorem tax exemptions and the property appraisal process to facilitate a more equitable tax system.
State provide transportation for female prisoners or full reimbursement of the cost.
Change the day of statewide elections to Saturday.
Increase the County Lateral Road Fund.
Improvements to the state’s disaster response including:
a single state agency for disaster response and recovery;
state funding and training for EMCs in all counties;
a state fund for immediate county disaster responses; and
immediate state-funded property tax relief for disaster victims.

Communicating the Cost of County Government

February 1, 2018 by Emily Lomax

Communicating the Cost of County Government

Unfunded Mandates Survey

Editor’s Note:
This survey report was released last year as a communication tool to help explain the cost of unfunded and underfunded mandates on property taxpayers. In the coming months, counties will be contacted and survey data will be updated in preparation for the 86th Session of the Texas Legislature, said Tim Brown, senior analyst with the Texas Association of Counties County Information Program, which helped prepare the survey report.
The full report includes additional charts, which can be viewed at http://bit.ly/unfunman2EvqW3v.

Introduction

In the current political and legislative environment, there is much talk about further restricting the ability of counties to generate revenue to carry out their responsibilities. These responsibilities include duties mandated by state and federal law, as well as other services county residents expect but are discretionary. These elements represent the basic cost of the basic government that counties have provided since the days of the Republic.

In order to assist county officials to explain the cost of unfunded and underfunded mandates on property taxpayers, several county associations joined together to conduct a survey of counties. These associations are the Texas Association of Counties, the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas, The Texas Conference of Urban Counties, and the Texas Association of County Auditors.

The mandates included in the survey do not represent all mandates placed on counties, but they do represent many of the more significant ones and those that support the most basic services counties provide. We thank all the counties that participated and we anticipate conducting this survey on a regular basis into the foreseeable future. It is critically important for county officials to communicate to constituents, taxpayers, and legislators what it is counties do, how they do it, and how it is funded. We trust this survey will prove useful to these efforts.

Methodology

The 2016 Unfunded Mandates Survey was conducted online by the Texas Association of Counties in cooperation with the Texas Association of County Auditors, the Conference of Urban Counties and the County Judges & Commissioners Association of Texas during the summer and fall of 2016. After several extensions to allow more counties to complete the survey, data from 98 counties made it into this report.

The data was used to calculate percentage increases as well as statewide extrapolations for each survey question (FY 2011, FY 2012, etc.). If a county provided data for five or fewer of those years, then that data was not used in determining percentage increases over the prior year and any extrapolations.

Statewide extrapolations were based on Census Bureau population estimates for each year. Since the estimates for 2016 were not available at the time of writing this report, each county’s 2015 population estimate was used instead as a proxy for the 2016 extrapolations. Additionally, while the survey asked for expenditures for fiscal years 2011 – 2015, it asked for budgets for FY 2016 as many counties had not completed their fiscal years at the time the survey commenced. As the survey progressed, some counties completed their fiscal years and a number of them noted on the survey form that they were providing expenditures on certain questions. As result, both the reported expenditures and the statewide extrapolations for FY 2016 are based on a combination of both budgeted amounts and expenditures.

However, statewide extrapolations do not make sense for every question on the survey. Therefore, where appropriate, the extrapolations were modified to cover only the counties covered by the identified mandates bracketed to counties over certain population thresholds or were left off entirely.

In addition to the survey data provided by county sources, complementary data was collected from other sources. For example, indigent defense data was obtained from the Texas Indigent Defense Commission. And, occasionally expenditure data from other sources was used in the report instead of asking counties to provide information already available from public sources.

Results

Although there was significant variation between mandates, most showed a significant tendency to increase in cost over time. While this was not always apparent from year to year as costs increased in some years and decreased in others, it became clear over the full six year period of the survey.

Elections

Counties are required to hold and pay for special elections, which may be called to fill vacancies in public office or for other matters. For instance, in 2007, the governor called a May constitutional amendment election. These elections are typically unforeseen and are often expedited and held on non-uniform election dates. Significant variation was perhaps most notable in the expenditures for special elections. One would expect normal election expenditures to cycle up and down over a four year cycle; a graph would be expected to show troughs in odd-numbered years and peaks in even-numbered years – with the presidential election years having the highest peaks. However, special elections are slightly different since they can come in bunches or not at all nor do statewide projections make any sense since the majority of special elections are not statewide.

Yet, special elections can be very costly to counties. As shown in the first chart, 50 counties noted expenditures reaching $1.7 million in FY 2014 – an increase of 201.0 percent over the prior year! Total expenditures increased by 229.1 percent from FY 2011 to FY 2016.

Chart 1

While not all counties have special elections, federal law requires all counties to use electronic voting machines for their elections. While the federal government provided initial funding through the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, counties pay the ongoing costs (programming, maintenance, storage, replacement, etc.). Based on responses from 72 counties, expenditures increased 29.4 percent from FY 2011 to FY 2016. Extrapolating to all 254 counties, estimated expenditures exceeded $8.8 million for FY 2016. Total estimated expenditures for all 254 counties increased by 29.6 percent from FY 2011 to FY 2016.

Chart 2

Justice System

Overall Justice System Expenditures

In Texas, counties provide a large portion of the financial support for courts and other elements of the justice system. Counties fund much of the district court operations (the state pays the base salaries of district court judges), county level courts (constitutional county court and county courts-at-law), and justice courts. While the state pays the salaries and benefits for district judges, counties pay all personnel and other operating costs plus provide the actual courtrooms/courthouses. Counties also fund county clerk offices, district clerk offices, and, in smaller counties, the office of the county and district clerk.

Prosecutorial offices, those of county attorneys, district attorneys, and criminal district attorneys, receive a large part of their funding from counties, as do lawyers appointed to indigent defendants in criminal cases and those appointed to represent children and indigent parents in certain Child Protective Services cases.

All of those expenses add up, extrapolating from the expenditures reported by 84 counties shows that statewide expenditures started out at over $1.2 billion dollars, reaching almost $1.6 billion for FY 2016. Total estimated expenditures for all 254 counties increased by 20.9 percent from FY 2011 to FY 2016.

Chart 3

It should be noted that not all counties necessarily included the same types of expenditures to determine their costs for supporting the judicial system, as not every county tracks these expenses in a similar manner. Generally, however, the estimated expenditures provide a helpful assessment of the total county costs for supporting the state’s court system.

Court-Appointed Attorneys in Child Protective Services Cases

Counties pay for the costs of court-appointed counsel in many cases. For example, in criminal cases, counties are responsible for the costs of court-appointed attorneys for indigent defendants. Counties pay for the attorneys and are reimbursed for only about 12 percent of those costs by the state. Additionally, counties must pay for all the costs of attorneys appointed to represent children and indigent parents in certain Child Protective Services cases. Sixty-seven counties provided their expenditures for court-appointed attorneys (ad litem) in Child Protective Services (CPS) cases; we asked that they exclude expenditures in criminal cases. Expenditures spiked somewhat in FY 2014 with an 8.8 percent increase before slowing to less than 3 percent increases in both FY 2015 and FY 2016. Hopefully, this recent tendency towards moderation will become a trend.

However, even with the recent moderation, when extrapolated to the entire state, estimated costs for court-appointed attorneys (ad litem) in CPS cases grew 28.1 percent from $35.6 million in FY 2011 to $45.6 million in FY 2016.

Collection Improvement Programs

Costs for a mandated collection improvement program[1] grew almost as fast, increasing 28.9 percent between FY 2011 and FY 2016. The mandate was instituted to improve the collection of court costs, fees, and fines imposed in criminal cases. The program must conform to a model developed by the Office of Court Administration (OCA).

Although a number of additional counties with voluntary collection improvement programs provided their costs, the analysis presented here is limited to those counties mandated to have such a program (currently those with a population over 50,000).

Chart 4

Victim Assistance Coordinators

Since 1989, all district attorneys, criminal district attorneys and certain county attorneys have been required to designate a victim assistance coordinator to ensure a victim, guardian of a victim, or close relative of a deceased victim is afforded certain crime victims’ rights granted by statute.[2] When asked, 63 counties provided their expenditures for each fiscal year from 2011 to 2016. After extrapolating to all 254 counties, it was determined that statewide costs had increased 28.4 percent over this period from $7.7 million to $9.9 million. Annual increases remained fairly constant at around 4.5 – 5.0 percent per year except for a 7.4 percent increase in FY 2014. Total estimated expenditures for all 254 counties increased by 28.4 percent from FY 2011 to FY 2016.

Chart 5

Jury Pay

In addition to expenditures for various items related to the justice system, we also asked counties about their total (net of reimbursement) expenditures for jury pay.

Jurors and prospective jurors are entitled to reimbursement of expenses of not less than $6 for the first day of service and not less than $40 for each following day of service, which is paid by the county. The state is required to reimburse a county $34 a day for each juror for each day of service after the first day.[3] The county has the option of paying more per day if they choose, but the additional amount is not reimbursed by the state.

Net expenditures rose in most years although it decreased in two of the survey years. As a result, statewide extrapolations for overall net expenditures for jury pay, as shown in Chart 6, increased 19.2 percent over the survey period from $17.6 million in FY 2011 to $21.0 million in FY 2016.

Chart 6

Bail Bond Boards

Except in certain limited circumstances, a defendant held in jail retains the right to post bail. If bail is posted, the defendant is released from custody pending trial. While any county can create a bail bond board, counties with populations of 110,000 or greater are required to do so in order to regulate the bail bond practice, including the licensing of bondsmen.[4]

Among the counties required to have such a board, estimated expenditures increased 37.3 percent from FY 2011 to FY 2016 based on extrapolations from the 21 responding counties in the population bracket. While these expenditures occasionally decreased, they rose by more than 10 percent in three out of five years.

Chart 7

As an additional note, the data does not take into account the $500 filing fee that a bail bond surety must pay when applying for a license. The fee is collected by the county and can be used by the bail bond board for certain expenses.

E-Filing

Many people misunderstand what is meant by e-filing. It is simply an electronic delivery system. Once delivered, the court clerk must either print the document in order to add it to the official record or have a case management system that allows the clerk to access, maintain and deliver the record electronically. In a county that has not moved to such a paperless environment, the additional time and resources needed to produce paper copies of documents filed electronically can more than offset any cost savings from e-filing. However, the following discussion of expenditures covers only e-filing and not costs associated with either printing records or purchasing and maintaining a case management system.

Chart 8

Counties experienced a dramatic increase in expenditures for e-filing over the survey period. Based on statewide extrapolations from expenditures reported by 48 counties, costs rose from less than a quarter million dollars in FY 2011 to more than $5.2 million in FY 2016. This 2,139.3 percent increase would have been even higher had the survey period ended in FY 2015 when statewide expenditures are estimated to have reached more than $7.5 million; this large spike in expenditures resulted directly from the mandate to provide e-filing beginning at different dates, depending on population size, starting in January 2014.

Indigent Health Care

The financial responsibility of providing health care for indigent individuals has traditionally rested on counties.[5] In effect, counties in Texas provide for preventative and emergency care to county residents who are indigent and not otherwise covered by another source. In practice, these costs often fall to a hospital district or public hospital where they exist. Due to the existence of these other indigent care entities, some counties reported $0 for their expenditures on the survey and expenditures were not extrapolated to all 254 counties.

While gross expenditures were fairly consistent from year to year among the 79 counties providing data for all six survey years, a significant rise in expenditures, actual and budgeted, in FY 2016 resulted in an overall increase of 25.6 percent over the survey period.

Chart 9

Indigent Health Care of County Jail Inmates

In addition to the general mandate to provide indigent health care, counties operate under a mandate to provide certain constitutional minimum levels of care, including mental health care, while a person is incarcerated in the county jail.[6] As with indigent health care above, the survey results for this question were not extrapolated to all 254 counties.

Chart 10

Expenditures for the 80 counties that provided data for all six years varied from virtually no change from FY 2011 to FY 2012 to an 8.8 percent increase in FY 2014. Overall, these expenditures rose 22.1 percent over the survey period as seen in Chart 10.

Training

County officials, both elected and appointed, as well as county staff have numerous training requirements.[7] While counties can obtain some funding from state and federal sources, the majority of the funding comes from local sources. For both survey questions on training expenditures, we asked counties to provide their net costs (total costs less state and federal funding).

Mandated Training for Officials and Staff

We asked counties how much mandatory training cost them, but did not ask them to include the salary costs of those attending training nor the costs of replacing missing personnel while they were being trained. Reported expenditures from 72 counties were used to create a statewide extrapolation of expenditures for mandatory training as seen in Chart 11.

Chart 11

Statewide mandatory training expenditures increased 50.9 percent from FY 2011 to FY 2016. Net costs varied significantly at times as expenditures rose 113.0 percent in FY 2012 only to fall 45.8 percent the following year.

Mandated Training for Jail Staff

We also asked counties to break out their expenditures for training jail staff from the overall training costs provided in the previous survey question. Seventy-six counties provided their expenditures from which the statewide extrapolations shown in Chart 12 were created.

Chart 12

While these costs remained fairly steady over most of the survey period, they rose dramatically in the most recent survey year, with an overall gain of 49.5 percent from FY 2011 to FY 2016.

County Jail

Total Operating Costs

Counties typically allocate a significant portion of their budgets towards operating the county jail. These costs arise because of numerous contributing factors such as physical plant maintenance and logistics, staffing ratios, mandatory training, meal pricing, utility services, life safety standards (i.e., smoke evacuation system, generators, etc.), extraordinary medical, dental and mental health care, and the number and type of inmates confined.

Data from 83 counties[8] was utilized to extrapolate statewide expenditures for operating county jails as seen in Chart 13. Extrapolated expenditures rose 20.1 percent over the survey period reaching almost $1.4 billion in FY 2016. It is estimated that statewide, counties spent more than $7.6 billion from FY 2011 – FY 2016 to operate their jails.

Chart 13

Emergency Room Visits

County jails must provide medical care to all inmates and sometimes must seek assistance in hospital emergency rooms. Unfortunately, many counties do not track these costs separately from other jail or medical costs. Consequently, only 41 counties were able to provide their expenditures for jail inmates’ trips to hospital emergency rooms.

Extrapolating to all 254 counties shows emergency room expenditures of $42.8 million by FY 2016, up 60.7 percent from FY 2011. On a percentage basis, most of that increase came in FY 2014 when expenditures rose 22.5 percent as seen in Chart 14.

Chart 14

Prescription Drugs

In addition to emergency room expenditures, we also asked counties about their expenditures on prescription drugs for jail inmates. Fifty-five counties responded with data for all six years of the survey period; Chart 15 shows the statewide expenditures extrapolated from their data.

Chart 15

The extrapolated statewide expenditures grew the most in FY 2014 with an 11.2 percent gain. This was followed immediately by a 7.7 percent increase in FY 2015. It is too soon to tell if the decrease in FY 2016 is the beginning of a trend or merely a short term aberration; however, historically medical costs have proven far more likely to grow than to shrink. Total estimated expenditures for all 254 counties increased by 20.4 percent from FY 2011 to FY 2016.

Mental Health Evaluations

In Texas, many of those needing psychiatric care repeatedly cycle through the criminal justice system instead of receiving treatment. While the state of Texas has taken great strides toward increasing crisis services and community mental health diversion programs, local mental health authorities (LMHA) remain woefully underfunded and struggle to keep pace with community needs. The problem is felt most acutely by individuals who need services but are not in immediate crisis, including those in county jails; due to limited financial and manpower resources, LMHAs attend to individuals in the most danger ahead of those who are being actively monitored, turning county jails into waiting rooms.

Using data from 43 counties, we extrapolated statewide expenditures for mental health evaluations of jail inmates. The results showed fairly consistent costs of just under $14 million per year for FY 2011 through FY 2015. However, expenditures increased 26.3 percent in FY 2016 as seen in Chart 16. Total estimated expenditures for all 254 counties increased by 25.9 percent from FY 2011 to FY 2016.

It should be noted that expenditures for mental health evaluations are only one small part of the total costs to counties from using jails to hold individuals who need and wait for mental health care.

Chart 16

Probation

Adult Probation

Community Supervision and Corrections Departments (CSCDs) supervise and monitor court orders for defendants whose criminal sentences have been suspended and probated with conditions to be met in lieu of going to jail or state prison. CSCD funding comes from a mixture of state and local dollars, grants and court-ordered supervision fees paid by defendants.

Rather than ask for total adult probation costs, we asked counties about their net expenditures for adult probation facilities. We received useful data from 75 counties from which we calculated the statewide extrapolations seen in Chart 17. The large spike in FY 2012 comes from the construction of new adult probation facilities in Denton County which, when extrapolated with the data from the other 74 counties, resulted in estimated statewide expenditures of $35.3 million for the year. The 77.9 percent increase from FY 2011 to FY 2016 would have been even higher if Denton County had allocated the costs to multiple years (FY 2012 and following) rather than reporting the total amount in a single year.

Chart 17

Juvenile Probation

Juvenile probation is administered locally, with state oversight, and funded by a combination of both state appropriations and local funds. However, county funding accounts for 70 percent of the total.

We asked counties for their net expenditures on juvenile probation. The statewide extrapolations in Chart 18 come from data supplied by 80 counties. Even though expenditures fell in two of the survey years, overall net statewide expenditures increased 20.6 percent over the survey period to $472.4 million.

Chart 18

The Deceased

Indigent Burials

It often falls to counties to deal with the remains of individuals who are indigent at their time of death.[9] Most often this means the county pays for each of these individual’s burials. However, some counties have adopted a policy of cremation where circumstances allow.

While we did not ask counties to specify their policies on indigent burials, we did ask for information on their expenditures. Chart 19 shows the statewide estimates of county expenditures for indigent burials from data provided by 78 counties. Expenditures peaked in FY 2015 at $2.3 million before falling slightly in FY 2016 for an overall increase of 10.5 percent over the survey period.

Chart 19

Medical Examiner’s Office

Although only five counties are mandated to maintain a medical examiner’s office, 58 counties told us they had expenditures for either a medical examiner’s office or for a medical examiner’s services.[10] Those expenditures peaked in FY 2011 at the beginning of the survey period due to Tarrant County’s new $60 million building to accommodate its criminalistics (i.e., forensic sciences), toxicology and chemistry laboratories. Eventually expenditures leveled out around the $25 million mark during FY 2013 – FY 2015 before ending at $27.9 million in FY 2016. Total estimated expenditures for all 254 counties decreased by 65.3 percent from FY 2011 to FY 2016.

Chart 20

Autopsies

According to 79 counties, expenditures for autopsies increased 41.3 percent from FY 2011 to FY 2016 as seen in Chart 21. The chart shows net expenditures as we asked counties to adjust their data for payments received for providing autopsies to other counties. Note that no statewide extrapolation is provided. Total estimated expenditures for all 254 counties increased by 41.3 percent from FY 2011 to FY 2016.

Chart 21

Motor Vehicles

Costs for Collecting Motor Vehicle Fees and Taxes

County tax assessor-collector offices provide most vehicle title and registration services. In recent years, these offices have had to endure several modifications to the motor vehicle registration and titling system initiated by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles (TxDMV). In addition, counties have dealt with a number of rule changes from TxDMV. For example, rules were adopted in 2016 which effectively decreased the funding that counties receive for performing registration services while not substantially decreasing the amount of work that counties must perform in order to complete registration services.

The 2016 rule changes occurred too recently to show up in the survey data since we requested FY 2016 budgets. Meanwhile, total estimated costs for collecting motor vehicle fees and taxes increased over the survey period. Extrapolations from data received from 71 counties show total statewide costs increased 20.1 percent as seen in Chart 22 – most of the increase occurring in the last two years.

Chart 22

Revenue from Collecting Motor Vehicle Fees and Taxes

We also asked counties about their revenue from motor vehicle fees and taxes. Unlike costs, revenue extrapolations were somewhat variable and actually fell for FY 2016. Still, total revenue increased 31.5 percent from FY 2011 to FY 2016.

Chart 23

Other

Support for the Department of Public Safety

While no statutory mandate requires counties to maintain an office for the Department of Public Safety (DPS), they must do so if they want a DPS agent stationed locally. Even some large, urban counties end up with expenditures for DPS. In all, 76 counties provided expenditure data for maintaining a DPS office. Those expenditures peaked in FY 2014, however, the increase was the result of increased spending in multiple counties, not just one as was seen in adult probation.

Extrapolating to all 254 counties results in estimated costs of $8.8 million as of FY 2016, up 3.5 percent from $8.5 million in FY 2011.

Chart 24

Veterans

Counties are increasingly called upon to identify veteran needs and available services based on recent legislative mandates.[11] Currently, 23 counties are mandated to have a veterans’ service officer (VSO) but more than 230 smaller counties have at least a part-time officer and some counties have a staff in addition to their VSO.

In regards to veterans, counties were asked to provide their expenditures for both veteran affairs and/or veteran services. Chart 25 reveals steadily increasing statewide costs after extrapolating from the responses of 83 counties. An overall increase of 35.1 percent does not tell the whole story as every year the percentage increase has grown since FY 2012. Following a double digit increase of 10.7 percent from FY2015 to FY 2016, statewide expenditures hit $12.9 million. Total estimated expenditures for all 254 counties increased by 35.1 percent from FY 2011 to FY 2016.

Chart 25

Appraisal District Budgets

Following the property tax reforms of 1979’s Peveto Bill, local governmental entities stopped performing their own appraisals and delegated that task to 254 newly created appraisal districts – one per county. In order to finance their operations, appraisal districts obtain their funding from counties, cities, school districts and special districts – those local entities that collect a property tax.[12] Each entity pays a pro rata share of the appraisal district’s budget based on the local entity’s property tax levy; the more property taxes you collect, the higher your share of the funding.

Although expenditures, as extrapolated to all 254 counties, reached $66.0 million in FY 2016, overall growth was somewhat restrained. Over the survey period, statewide expenditures increased 17.3 percent.

Chart 26

Open Meetings

Effective January 1, 2016, the state requires counties with populations of 125,000 or more to post audio and video recordings of open meetings to the internet.[13] Based on their 2010 Census populations, only 31 counties fit into this bracket. Of those, nine provided their expenditures for FY 2011 through FY 2016 for posting their recorded open meetings.

Chart 27 tracks the growth of those expenditures as extrapolated to all 31 counties in the population bracket. What had been fairly rapid growth in expenditures, often greater than 15 percent, skyrocketed in FY 2016 as costs to counties increased by a total of 199.7 percent over the survey period as a result of this recent mandate.

Chart 27

Other Mandates Not Included in Survey

This section contains information on additional unfunded mandates. These mandates were not covered by questions in the survey; instead, the data comes from other sources.

County Roads and Bridges – Oversize/Overweight Trucks

In general, each county maintains responsibility for public roads and bridges within its boundaries although many exceptions exist to this general rule such as city streets and national or state highways. Legally, many large vehicles can operate on those roads. There are size and weight limits in place which restrict the use of that infrastructure by the largest and heaviest vehicles. However, operators of oversize and/or overweight (OS/OW) vehicles can obtain various permits allowing their vehicles to use public roads and bridges. In 2012, a TxDOT commissioned report, written by the University of Texas at Austin’s Center for Transportation Research and the University of Texas at San Antonio, evaluated the damage that oversize/overweight (OS/OW) vehicles (including exempt vehicles) cause to the transportation infrastructure (including roads and bridges).

The report focused on whether the revenue from permits sufficiently covered the cost of damages to state maintained roads and bridges. While it did not directly address county roads and bridges, the report provided a framework from which we can derive an estimate of the statewide costs to counties.

Based on usage data for a single type of permit from the report, Over-Axle Weight Tolerance (1547) Permits, and using a cost per mile one-half that utilized by the report to determine the cost of vehicles operating under a 1547 permit to state roads, it is estimated that counties suffered net losses (revenue from permits minus the cost of damages to county roads and bridges) of $145.7 million in 2014 and $152.6 million in 2015.

Many other types of permits exist, therefore, the actual net losses to counties most likely are significantly higher.

Indigent Defense – Court-Appointed Counsel in Criminal Cases

When criminal indigent defendants cannot afford counsel, counties pick up the tab. The state chips in some funds, but the vast majority of the funding comes from the counties as Chart 28 shows.

Chart 28

Indigent Defense – Court-Appointed Counsel in Criminal Cases

When criminal indigent defendants cannot afford counsel, counties pick up the tab. The state chips in some funds, but the vast majority of the funding comes from the counties.

Statewide criminal indigent defense costs have increased from $91.4 million in 2001 to $247.7 million in 2016, a 171 percent increase. However, state grants distributed by the Texas Indigent Defense Commission have covered only a small proportion of total costs. In FY 2016, the state funded only about $31.6 million of the total statewide indigent defense costs, while counties contributed approximately $216.1 million (about 87 percent of the total expenditures).

This data came from the Texas Indigent Defense Commission’s presentation: Senate Finance Hearing, Feb. 7, 2017, Legislative Appropriations Request FY 2018 and FY 2019.

[1] Tex. Code Crim. Pro. art. 103.0033

[2] Tex. Code Crim. Pro. art. 56.04(b)

[3] Tex. Gov’t. Code §§61.001 and 61.0015.

[4] Tex. Occupations Code §1704.051 et seq.

[5] Tex. Health & Safety Code, Chap. 61

[6] Tex. Code Crim. Pro. art. 104.002 and Tex. Health & Safety Code, Chap. 61

[7] See, for example Tex. Local Gov’t. Code §§81.0025(a) and 84.0085(a).

[8] There are a few counties that do not have a jail. However, they were included in the survey responses and therefore they were included in the extrapolations.

[9] Tex. Health & Safety Code §694.002

[10] Tex. Code Crim. Pro. art. 49.01

[11] Tex. Gov’t. Code §434.031 et seq.

[12] Tex. Tax Code §6.06

[13] Tex. Gov’t. Code §551.128

Keep Your Eye Out…For Unfunded Mandates, and Legislation to Prohibit Them

March 12, 2013 by Christi Stark

By Julie Anderson | Editor, County Progress

Two years ago when Rep. Burt R. Solomons (R-Carrollton) filed House Joint Resolution 56 calling for the prohibition of unfunded mandates, Oldham County Judge Don R. Allred was there in person to offer his applause.

“This was an important piece of legislation for counties,” stressed Allred, a past president of the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas (CJCAT). “Unfunded mandates from state and federal governments have been the single greatest factor in the increase of county budgets over the last few years.”

House Joint Resolution 56 (HJR 56), filed on Jan. 10, 2011, called for a constitutional amendment that would bar state lawmakers from imposing any mandates on local government without paying for them. The legislative language read: “No bill enacted by the Legislature on or after January 1, 2012, requiring a local government to establish, expand or modify a duty or activity that requires the expenditure of revenue by the local government shall be effective until and unless the Legislature appropriates or otherwise provides for the payment or reimbursement, from a source other than the revenue of the local government, or the costs incurred for the biennium by the local government in complying with the requirement.”

Companion legislation was filed by Sen. John Carona (R-Dallas) in the form of Senate Joint Resolution 17. Both resolutions would have applied to counties, cities, community college districts, hospital districts, and other special districts.

In addition, House Joint Resolution 89 filed by Rep. Garnet Coleman (D-Houston) proposed an unfunded mandate amendment applied only to counties.

Both HJR 56 and HJR 89 made it to the House Calendars Committee but not to the floor, and SJR 17 did not get a committee hearing on the Senate side. Had any of these resolutions passed through the Legislature, voters would have made the final call in the November 2011 election.

If at First You Don’t Succeed…

What may be considered a defeat was actually deemed by many as a success, considering the statistics involved:

Some 95 bi-partisan authors and co-authors supported HJR 56, only five short of the two-thirds needed for House passage of a constitutional amendment.
The majority of Texas counties passed resolutions in support of HJR 56, resolutions which played a major role in educating lawmakers.

Legislative analysts have long suggested that some bills take multiple presentations, session after session, before garnering the needed support. As of press time committees had just been assigned, and an unfunded mandate resolution had not yet been filed.

As early as 2004, 253 counties passed resolutions decrying unfunded mandates and supporting a constitutional amendment prohibiting them. For counties and cities that are at the statutory maximum tax rate, unfunded mandates give local governments no option but to cut services for their constituents. For those who are not capped out, unfunded mandates force tax increases.

“Unfunded mandates can have a devastating impact on county budgets and can limit a county’s ability to provide essential services by diverting funds already allocated to specific programs to the mandates sent down from the state,” said CJCAT Immediate Past President and Hays County Commissioner Debbie Gonzales Ingalsbe.

Prior to 2004, the CJCAT addressed unfunded mandates in a resolution on fiscal notes with the following clause, “THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas urges the Legislature of the State of Texas, in all future legislative sessions, to expand the legislative fiscal note process to fully recognize all costs of any legislation to counties and to adopt a constitutional amendment or legislation to prohibit such unfunded and/or under-funded mandates.”

In 2004, the leadership crafted a resolution dedicated solely to the issue of unfunded mandates, which has been passed every year since by the State Association and its Regional Associations at their respective business meetings and has served as a key element of the CJCAT legislative platform. (See resolution page 17.)

“The primary legislative objective of the State Association is the prevention of unfunded mandates,” emphasized Jim Allison, general counsel to the CJCAT. “Legislators have an unending supply of ‘good ideas’ without funding. Every session, we successfully defeat numerous bills with proposed unfunded mandates. Despite our efforts, some unfunded mandates are enacted.”

The financial burdens placed upon counties by the Legislature in recent decades have become onerous for local property taxpayers, either causing local property tax hikes or reductions in services. For example, the 2001 Fair Defense Act basically doubled the price tag for appointed attorneys with the state assuming only a meager portion of the cost, meaning local property taxpayers are required to make up the difference. In 2005, Senate Bill 6 mandated counties must provide attorneys for indigent parents in CPS cases without a matching appropriation from the state to pay for the mandate.

The approximate percent of the county budget consumed by unfunded mandates will vary from 50 percent to 70 percent, Allison reported.

Unfunded mandates account for just over 50 percent of Ector County’s budget, according to a study conducted by the county auditor in 2011.

“Just to put this in context, our 2011 budget for our general fund was $43,835,737, so it is easily deduced that more than $20 million goes to unfunded mandates,” said Ector County Judge Susan Redford.

The CJCAT and its leadership team will, as always, keep vigil throughout the session with a watchful eye on any and all legislation that could result in an unfunded mandate, whether intended or unintended.

“We are going to spend most of our time making sure that the Legislature does not solve the state’s budget deficit by shifting responsibility and cost down to the counties,” said CJCAT Legislative Committee Chairman and Polk County Judge John Thompson. “All county officials should stay close to their state elected officials and make sure they know where we stand.”

One method to communicate the county message is to pass resolutions calling for the prohibition of unfunded mandates at the local level and make sure copies of these resolutions land directly in the hands of lawmakers. H

Major Issues of Legislative Session

April 4, 2005 by admin

As the legislative session progresses, two major county issues are emerging. First, revenue caps and appraisal caps will be pushed at every opportunity by their supporters. Amendments will be proposed to every tax or appraisal bill to insert these state controls. Second, the Legislature will continue to propose unfunded mandates. Please continue your communication with your legislators on these issues.
Several important bills have been filed affecting county government. Since bills are often amended, please check the current version before contacting your senator and representative to support or oppose these bills.

Good Bills – Need Support

HB129 by Rep. Berman – Allows sheriff to use inmate labor on non-profit projects approved by commissioners court.

HB132 by Rep. Hilderbran – Allows county health services district to adjust sales tax.

HB305 by Rep. Goodman – Clarifies that less than a quorum can meet without violating Open Meetings Act.

HB347 by Rep. Chisum – Provides authority for a county to charge a fee for pipelines in county road.

HB348 by Rep. Chisum – Requires commissioners court approval to erect a gate on county road.

HB477 by Rep. Casteel / SB142 by Sen. Wentworth – Expands county land development authority after referendum.

HB631 by Rep. W. Smith – Expands county fire code authority to include multi-family dwellings.

HB653 by Rep. Casteel / SB141 by Sen. Wentworth – Authorizes counties to adopt additional subdivision regulations.

HB667 by Rep. Jones / SB210 by Sen. Carona – Authorizes increase in courthouse security fee to $10 from $5.

HB731 by Rep. Jackson – Authorizes county electronic requisition systems.

HB757 by Rep. Farabee – Authorizes counties to enact ordinances for health, safety or welfare.

HB845 by Rep. Krusee – Exempts courthouse holding cells from jail standards.

HB848 by Rep. Herrero – Increases the county optional motor vehicle registration fee to $20 from $10.

HB950 by Rep. Casteel – Increases real estate filing fees in county clerk’s office.

HB1231 by Rep. Castro / SB829 by Sen. Wentworth. Allows commissioners court to establish petty cash funds.

HB1285 by Rep. Swinford. Exempts audit and investigation papers ordered by commissioners court from the Open Records / Public Information Act.

HB1287 by Rep. Leibowitz. Authorizes county to control access to property to prevent nuisance violations.

HB1385 by Rep. Hartnett. Restores governmental immunity from attorneys fees in declaratory judgment actions.

HB1404 by Rep. Deshotel. Adds filing fee for additional documents in probate cases.

HB1410 by Rep. Campbell. Increases state salary supplement to constitutional county judges to $15,000 from $10,000.

HB1468 by Rep. McReynolds. Expands eligibility for county assistance district to all counties under 50,000 population.

HB1610 by Rep. Chisum. Authorizes a county to charge a fee, not to exceed $500, for activity that cuts, damages or disturbs a county road.

HB1727 by Rep. Leibowitz – Authorizes county to create land use planning district in part of the county upon voter approval.

HB1954 by Rep. Merritt – Persons capable of posting bail would not be eligible for indigent legal defense.

HB2103 by Rep. Homer – Unfunded mandates expire in three years.

HB2120 by Rep. Ray Allen / SB1049 by Sen. Lindsay – General statutory clean-up bill. Includes statewide magistration.

HB2121 by Rep. Wayne Smith / SB1068 by Sen. Madla – Authorizes a county electronic requisition system.

HB2154 by Rep. Smithee – Authorizes a candidate for county or precinct office to decline compensation.

HB2164 by Rep. Dunnam – Allows use of county clerk record management fee to maintain building and facilities.

HB2251 by Rep. Rose – Allows counties to require permit to move manufactured homes over county roads.

HB2253 by Rep. Rose / SB768 by Sen. Wentworth – Authorizes county to regulate outdoor lighting.

HB2389 by Rep. Campbell – Allows counties under 150,000 population to receive surplus property from DPS.

HJR20 by Rep. Hilderbran – Constitutional amendment to prohibit unfunded mandates.

HJR41 by Rep. Casteel / SJR25 by Sen. Lindsay – Constitutional amendment to prohibit unfunded mandates.

HJR53 by Rep. Todd Smith. Constitutional amendment to prohibit unfunded mandates.

SB57 by Sen. Nelson – Authorizing county regulation of billboards.

SB243 by Sen. Wentworth / SB282 by Sen. Madla – Requiring disclosure of real property purchase price to appraisal district.

Bad Bills – Need Work

HB159 by Rep. Talton – Prohibits political subdivision from spending funds for advertising or educational materials on referendum measures.

HB182 by Rep. Mowery / SB181 by Sen. Janek – Authorizing appraisal appeals to JP court.

HB457 by Rep. Dutton – Expands county liability for conditions caused by motor-driven equipment.

HB634 by Rep. Baxter / SB286 by Sen. Wentworth – Requires training in Open Meetings and Open Records within 30 days of assuming office.

HB786 by Rep. Hope – Restricts county authority to prohibit solid waste disposal.

HB914 by Rep. Woolley – Imposes additional conflict of interest filing requirements on county officials.

HB1006 by Rep. Isett – Mandates referendum if tax increase exceeds 3 percent.

HB1194 by Rep. Mowery. Prohibits county from removing barrier during road contests.

HB1477 by Rep. Guillen. Establishes a $20 court cost fee payable to Office of Court Administration to reimburse jurors in lengthy trials.

HB1607 by Rep. McCall. Creates presumption that request for information sent by e-mail was received by third day after sent.

HB1961 by Rep. Otto / SB1067 by Sen. Madla – Removes 5 percent cap on salary increases for assistant auditor.

HB2198 by Rep. Madden – Grants exclusive control to private operator of jail commissary contract.

HB2236 by Rep. Baxter – Requires study and hearing before any increase in permit fees; restricts fee increases to cost of issuing permit.

HB2404 by Rep. Keel – Requires counties over 250,000 population to create county elections administrator.

HJR16 / HB108 by Rep. Wong – Caps property appraisal increases at 5 percent.

HJR28 / HB359 by Rep. Bonnen – Caps property appraisal increases at 3 percent.

HJR35 / HB784 by Rep. Bohac – Caps property appraisal increases at 5 percent.

HJR36 / HB819 by Rep. Leibowitz – Caps property appraisal increases at 4 percent.

HJR40 / HB980 by Rep. Riddle – Establishes a 3 percent appraisal cap.

SB230 by Sen. West – Increases county indigent health care liability to 200 percent of poverty; transfers county funds to state tertiary fund.

SB543 by Sen. Shapleigh. Authorizes members of Legislature to obtain a free copy of any record.

SB1080 by Sen. Ellis. Adds additional mandates to indigent criminal defense.

SB1107 by Sen. Madla – Repeals statutory provisions for removal of county treasurer for failure to post surety bond.

SB1108 by Sen. Madla – Repeals ability of commissioners court to set amount of treasurer’s surety bond.

For more information, please call me at 1-800-733-0699.Jim Allison, General Counsel CJCAT

County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas 2018 Resolutions

The following resolutions were passed by the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas representing 254 counties in the State of Texas on October 11, 2018, during the Association’s Annual Conference.

1. Thanks to the Host Court

Communicating the Cost of County Government

Communicating the Cost of County Government

Unfunded Mandates Survey

Introduction

Methodology

Results

Indigent Health Care

Training

County Jail

Probation

The Deceased

Motor Vehicles

Other Mandates Not Included in Survey

Keep Your Eye Out…For Unfunded Mandates, and Legislation to Prohibit Them

Major Issues of Legislative Session

Privacy Policy

County Progress

Search County Progress