ORDER N0.28432
RESOLUTION OPPOSING UNFUNDED MANDATES
On this the 24th day of November 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-
0-0 to approve a Resolution opposing unfounded mandates and authorizing referendum
concerning same to be placed on March, 2004, primary election ballot.
~3 ~~
COMMISSIONERS' COURT AGENDA REQUEST
PLEASE FURNISH ONE ORIGINAL AND NINE COPIES OF THIS REQUEST AND DOCUMENTS TO BE
REVIEWED BY THE COURT.
MADE BY: Pat Tinley OFFICE: County Judge"'
MEETING DATE: November 24, 2003 TIlVIE PREFERRED:
SUBJECT: (PLEASE BE SPECIFIC)
Consider and discuss approval of Resolution opposing unfunded mandates and authorizing
referendum concerning same to be placed on March, 2004, primary election ballots.
EXECUTIVE SESSION REQUESTED: (PLEASE STATE REASON)
NAME OF PERSON ADDRESSING THE COURT
County Judge
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF PRESENTATION:
IF PERSONNEL MATTER -NAME OF EMPLOYEE:
Time for submitting this request for Court to assure that the matter is posted in accordance with Title 5, Chapter
551 and 552, Government Code, is as follows:
Meeting scheduled for Mondays:
THIS REQUEST RECEIVED BY:
THIS REQUEST RECEIVED ON:
5:00 P.M. previous Tuesday.

All Agenda Requests will be screened by the County Judge's Office to determine if adequate information has been
prepared for the Court's formal consideration and action at time of Court Meetings. Your cooperation will be
appreciated and contribute towards you request being addressed at the earliest opportunity. See Agenda Request Rules
Adopted by Commissioners' Court.
County of ~ '~~
State of Texas
Resolution
WHEREAS, / 1 ~ ~ ~-' County is responsible for the operation and
management of many and various governmental programs as required or
authorized by 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
WHERF_.AS, 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 of l~ ~ ~ - ~'' does 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, including 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. /
ADOPTED THE ~~`( DAY OF ~i/;' ~'r= ,'~ ~~~ r' 20Q ~ .
SIGNED AND ENTERED ON THE ABOVE DATE BY THE
FOLLOWING MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSIONERS COURT
~~~~,,~~~ County Judge ~ ~,~-
J[Y _ w~~
County Commissioner County Commissioner
Precinct No.
Commissioner
No. 3
Precinct No. 2
County Commissioner
Precinct No. 4
2
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
[FILL IN DATE OF RELEASE]
CONTACT: [NAME]
[PHONE AND/OR E-MAIL]
LOCAL COUNTY OFFICIAL SEES TO PROTECT TAXPAYERS
FROM UNFUNDED MANDATES
[Full name and title] supports allowing voters to decide if unfunded mandates from the state to counties should
be reined in to protect taxpayers from being saddled with higher property taxes.
[Last name] joins county officials from across Texas in seeking a constitutional amendment that would limit
state actions which mandate counties to spend additional funds, unless the state pays for its mandates.
"Our property taxpayers currently have no protection against state actions that force counties to raise taxes,"
[Last name] said. "We believe a constitutional amendment would curtail many of the unfunded mandates. The
mandates are often unintended consequences of legislative action or state administrative action. While
legislators and state executives do not willingly intend to cause local tax increases, their actions too often result
in tax hikes because they do not include statewide funding mechanisms to pay for the directives to counties."
To initiate the effort, the Subcommittee on Unfunded Mandates of the Policy Analysis Group (PAG) met
recently at the Texas Association of Counties (TAC) in Austin. The subcommittee decided to seek a
referendum in both the Republican and Democratic Party primary elections next spring.
The referendum was proposed by Bee County Tax Assessor-Collector Andrea Gibbud and quickly approved by
other members of the subcommittee who were present, including its Chairman and Brazoria County
Commissioner Jack Hams, Fort Bend County Tax Assessor-Collector Marsha Gaines, Dallas County
Commissioner Jim Jackson and Gibbud.
The referendum would give primary voters the opportunity to express their feelings on better protecting local
taxpayers from state mandates through a proposed constitutional amendment. The referendum states: "For or
against a constitutional amendment protecting taxpayers by prohibiting state mandates that require local
property tax increases." The constitutional amendment will be presented to the Legislature at its next session.
Subcommittee members noted that legislative budget actions during tough financial times often have a direct
impact on counties and properly taxpayers, even when legislators do not intend such a burden. During the 78~`
session that ended earlier this year, examples include cuts to health care, mental health and the Children's
Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that have resulted in counties being forced to assume additional costs.
Under-funded or unfunded mandates from previous legislatures have included the 1985 Indigent Health Care
Act and the 2001 law mandating indigent criminal defense services.
TAC is composed of local elected officials from all Texas' 254 counties. The PAG was formed in 1997, and its
members selected issues upon which to focus, including unfunded mandates.
-30-
[For additional background information, contact Elea Christopher at 1-8()Q456-5974 or elnac@county.org.]
Unfunded Mandates from the 78a` Legislative Session
HB 401 relating to the testing of certain public safety personnel for accidental exposure to hepatitis B
or hepatitis C. Requires the employer of EMS personnel, firefighters, peace officers or first
responders to pay the cast of a Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C test on the patient who received services
from the EMS personnel, firefighter, peace officer or first responder, if there is a belief of exposure to
one of the providers. This would also apply to volunteers who are rendering assistance. While such
services aze essential to the well being of emergency personnel and should be rendered, the state
elected not to help counties pay for the program.
HB 1 relating to the appropriations of money for the 2004-2005 Biennium.
Article I
Historical Commission-Courthouse Preservation, loss of $5 million for the biennium
Article II
Health Department-Indigent Health Caze Program, loss of $22,965,580 for the biennium
Other areas of concern under Article II, possible fiscal impacts to counties.
• The CHIP Program keeps eligibility at 200% of the poverty level, but adds an asset limit to
CHIP and eliminates most income disregards. Additionally, there are additional changes to
the program which reduce benefits as follows: (1) a 90-day waiting period for enrollment, (2)
reducing continuous eligibility to 6 months (from the current 12 months), and (3} requiring
higher co-payments and premiums from clients. According to the Center for Public Policy
Priorities these changes are projected to reduce the number of children enrolled by 169,295
below projected enrollment in 2005 (or, 166,897 below May 2003 enrollment). These kids
will no longer be treated for acute caze and will be treated in the emergency room of a
hospital at a much higher cost. This will be in a public hospital or a hospital district, both of
which are supported to a substantial extent by county tax dollars.
• Due to the cuts in Medicaid services such as mental health services and podiatry services the
costs of these services will be shifted to the county either by using a public funded hospital or
by using the county jail as the mental health facility. It is not possible to quantify the amount;
however, county leaders expect the costs will be substantial.
Article IV
Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council
Information Technology, loss of $1,072,168 for the biennium
Assistance to administrative judicial regions, loss of $52,756 for the biennium
Rider 5-Information services for trial courts, reduced by $288,344
Judiciary Section, Comptroller's Department
Visiting retired judges, (regions) loss of $5,499,934 for the biennium
Witness expenses, loss of $1 million for the biennium
2
Statutory court judge GR supplement, loss of $140,000 for the biennium
Felony prosecutors travel, loss of $23,500
Prosecutors expenses, loss of $213,924 for the biennium
Article V
As listed in the 2004-2005 State Appropriations Budget, counties will lose funding under the
Challenge Grant and Non-Residential Program funding under the Juvenile Probation Commission's
budget (funding for both programs was cut for fiscal yeazs 2004 and 2005).
• The Challenge Grant Program assisted 24 counties (Bexaz, Brazoria, Brazos, Comal,
Dallas, El Paso, Gray, Guadalupe, Hale, Hams, Hidalgo, Jefferson, Lubbock, Montgomery, Nueces,
Randall, San Patricio, Smith, Tarrant, Taylor, Tom Green, Travis, Van Zandt, Williamson) and was
budgeted at $677,721.00 in 2002-2003.
• The Non-Residential Program assisted 11 counties (Coke, Dewitt, Hale, Hazrison,
Houston, Karnes, Kaufman, Lampasas, Milani, Polk, Rockwall) and was budgeted at $250,000.00 in
2002-2003.
Another area of concern under Article V, is the elimination of the Criminal Justice Policy Council.
The Council served as great resowce for counties when looking at jail overcrowding issues. The
statistical data generated by the Policy Council that assisted counties in making financial projections
and construction plans (jail contracts and personnel) is no longer available. It is not possible to
estimate or quantify this loss to counties. However, the elimination of the Policy Council will most
asswedly result in substantial financial adversities to counties, including inefficiencies and waste
attributable to incarceration emergencies and jail inmate contingencies that were previously
predictable.
Article VII
Texas Department of Transportation, Rider 18: Road Materials. A fiscal appropriation for counties is
now transferred into a physical appropriation of road maintenance materials. Whereas Rider 22 of
the 2002-2003 biennium provided for counties to receive a portion ($4.1 million in calendar 2002) of
Gross Weight and Axle Weight fees collected by the state (Transportation Code 621.353), Rider 18
of the 2004-2005 biennium provides for disbursement of double the amount of road materials, but no
fiscal appropriations.
2
Ezamples of Unfunded 1Viandates from Past Legislative Sessions
Unfunded mandates aze not a new creation. They did not begin with the most recent legislative
session but have occurred in years past.
Two glaring examples stem from 1985 and 2001 respectively:
• Prior to the enactment of the Indigent Health Care Act (Health & Safety Code), counties had
a general obligation to care for paupers. The Act, passed in 1985, established 138 counties
and all public hospitals as the payer of last resort and statutorily set out specific duties and
responsibilities. The mostly unfunded state mandate provided for a county spending limit of
530,000.00 per person and statutory list of mandated health care services and medication
regimen. The state did provide for a reimbursement threshold for funds expended by a county
on indigent health care in excess of 10% of the county budget (since been lowered to 8%).
However, the reimbursement is limited and subject to funds being available.
• County governments continue to wrestle with the fiscal impacts of Senate Bi117 from the 77a'
Legislature. The law, passed in 2001, requires counties to provide criminal defense services
to indigent defendants but was only partially fimded by state lawmakers. Its continuing
impact on county budgets showed up in a resolution passed by the County Judges and
Commissioners Associarion of Texas at its annual conference in October 2003. Resolution
No. 13: Indigent Criminal Defense asked that the 78~' Legislature address the issue in any
upcoming special session and states:
WHEREAS, Senate Bi117 has required additional county taxpayer expense to provide
indigent criminal defense services; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 7 has added administrative duties and reporting requirements to
county offices; and
WHEREAS, the current appropriation is insufficient to reimburse counties for these
mandated costs; now
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Judges and Commissioners
Association of Texas urges the Legislature, during special session, to revise the provisions of
Senate Bi117 to simplify the administrative and reporting requirements and improve the
efficiency of the indigent criminal defense program; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislature, during special session, either 1)
authorize sufficient funds to commensurate counties for the full costs of implementing the
mandates of the indigent criminal defense program or 2) repeal the mandatory, unfunded
andlor underfunded provisions of Senate Bill 7.
i:~'1I+'UNDED MANDATES
GENERAL TALHING POINTS
Definition of Unfunded Mandates (UFM): Financial burdens placed upon county
governments by state actions, often resulting in increased property taxes at the local level.
Such state actions include:
• directives to counties without providing the necessary funding to carry out the
directives;
• withdrawal of or cuts in state funding to carry out existing directives; and
• changes in state operations which inadvertently result in county expenses and
inefficiencies.
County government is an arm of state government and carries out the state's directives.
However, it is important to remember that the burden of paving for unfunded state
directives falls squarel~pon local progeny tpxp~ygrs.
Unfunded mandates are often an unintended consequence of legislative action or state
administrative action. In other words, legislators and state executives do not willingly
intend to cause increases in local property tax rates, but their directives result in local tax
hikes because they do not put in place statewide mechanisms to pay for their directives
and administrative changes.
The problem of unfunded mandates did not begin with the most recent legislative
session. Past legislatures and state agencies have done the same thing to counties and
taxpayers. It is an on-going dilemma and will continue to be so, especially in times of
economic stress for the state.
This is not a partisan issue. It cuts across both political parties, and no one political
party is to blame.
Currently, the financial circumstances and economic climate in the state are not that
wholesome, and the projections for recovery may not be as sound as some would have us
believe. There is the worry that the state will resort to even more severe cuts in existing
programs that will keep counties in a state of financial uncertainty, materially interfere
with meeting budgetary essentials and cause a loss in bond ratings.
Local properly taxpayers often do not understand the subtleties of the way our
governments are organized. Hence, when their property taxes rise due to unfunded
mandates, taxpayers know only to blame their local elected officials, whose hands are
tied by state government. It is crucial to educate the public so they will understand the
workings of unfunded mandates and make their concerns known to their legislators.
A SAMPLING OF REPORTS & EDITORIAL COLUNINS
FROM TEXAS NEWSPAPERS
"Across Texas, local governments saddled with state-mandated costs have had to raise
taxes... Counties were hit particulazly hazd by a state budget that sloughed obligations onto them
Locally, our county faces pressing needs like juvenile justice, overburdened courts and jails."
John Young, Opinion Page Editor
Waco Tribune Herald, Oct. 1, 2003
"[State budget cuts) will shrink government, but they will do nothing to stanch demand driven
by current need and burgeoning population. Nor will the proposed cuts prevent county
governments from raising local taxes to make up the difference and, down the road, pick up the
tab for added strain on emergency and trauma care centers, crisis services for patients with
uncontrolled mental illness, and county-run operations, like jails and probation programs,
because of the problems that festered...
"'The pain will fall squazely on the county's shoulders to do more with even less funding from
outside,' Hams County Commissioner El Franco Lee says... Lee is a Democrat, but the budget
concerns cut across party lines. Hams County Constable Bill Bailey, a Republican, is president
of TAC... The group also is working to pass a resolution for a constitutional amendment, HJR91,
that would require the state to fund all mandates it prescribes for local governments."
Houston Chronicle Editorial Board
May 9, 2003
"Government is like water, says Hunt County Judge Joe Bobbitt. It all runs downhill. In Texas,
county governments aze at the bottom of that hill...
"...reductions in programs like Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program will roll
down the hill toward counties and force them to face their own tough questions... "
William McKenzie, Editorial Columnist
Dallas Morning News
Apri129, 2003
"To the state of Texas: Don't send El Paso any mandates you can't fund. Following that
common-sense advice would go a long way toward making El Paso a participant in, rather than a
victim of, the state's budget process."
El Paso Times Editorial Board
Apri129, 2003
"Here's another economic lesson that taxpayers should understand: The need for health care and
the delivery of it in crisis circwnstances for the working poor will not end when the Legislature
leaves Austin... No, the burden will shift to the John Peter Smiths (public hospitals) of Texas -
and when the money runs out there, the Tarrant County Commissioners Court will have to step
up. And you do know that increased taxes from the county show up on the property tax bill,
don't you?"
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board
May 10, 2003
"An `unfunded mandate' is a law passed from a higher branch of government down to a lower
one with no means provided to pay for it. In many states, the practice is illegal. In Texas,
counties have tried without success for years to get funding provided for all new laws.
Comal County officials have long lamented unfunded state and federal mandates."
Ron Maloney, Reporter
New Braunfels Herald-Zeitung
August 14, 2003
"The Texas Legislature effectively pulled the plug Friday on visiting judges, leaving one felony
court in Smith County with no judge and courts at law preparing to juggle increasing criminal
dockets with civil tort trials expected to last for several months...(GeorgeGowart, ofl`ice manager
for the First Judicial District) said dealing with unexpected court matters and crowded dockets
without relying on visiting judges will be a first in Texas. `We're trying to be as creative as
possible to keep the wheels of justice from falling apart' Cowart said."
Anne Wright, Reporter
Tyler Morning Telegraph
August 30, 2003
"For example, it's the state that requires (El Paso's) Thomason Hospital to provide emergency
medical services to anyone who walks in the door. Yet, Thomason... is not allowed to ascertain
citizenship... More poor people will seek treatment in Thomason's emergency room. Simple
infections that could be treated for a few dollars will cost hundreds, possibly thousands, to treat
in the ER. Who will pay for this? You, the local taxpayer."
Bernadette Self, Editorial Columnist
EI Paso Times
May 9, 2003
"...the county gets stuck prosecuting many federal drug cases, and paying to hold these inmates
in the county jail. Local taxpayers are footing the bill, to the tune of millions of dollars, for state
and federal responsibilities."
Bernadette Self, Editorial Columnist
El Paso Times
May 9, 2003
Referendum
for Republican & Democratic Primary Ballots
Mach 9, 2004 Primary Election
"For or against a constitutional
amendment protecting taxpayers by
prohibiting state mandates that require
local property tax increases."

Kerr Countv Judae/Commissioners' Court
From: "Elna Christopher" <EInaC~County.Org>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 200311:00 AM
Subject: Unfunded Mandates Initiative
The Subcommittee on Unfunded Mandates of the Policy Analysis Group (PAG)
recently supported action regarding counties' need for a constitutional
amendment to prohibit unfunded mandates by the state. Unfunded mandates
impose costs on Texas counties and their taxpayers exceeding millions of
dollars statewide and can force counties to increase property tax rates to
pay for unfunded or under-funded directives passed by the state.
Subcommittee members aze seeking the assistance of all county officials in
Texas to support the proposed amendment leading up to and during the 79th
legislative session in 2005.
First, the members request that counties pass resolutions supporting the
unfunded mandate amendment and issue news releases explaining and supporting
the amendment. Resolutions passed by commissioners courts should be faxed
to 512-478-3573.
Second, the subcommittee members will seek placement of anon-binding
referendum on both the Republican and Democratic primary ballots on March 9,
2004. The referendum will demonstrate voter support of the constitutional
amendment.
Third, the subcommittee members urge all county officials to raise public
awazeness regarding the problem of unfunded mandates, including contacting
their local news media and community leaders.
Subcommittee members aze Brazoria County Commissioner Jack Harris,
subcommittee chairman; Dallas County Commissioner Jim Jackson; Fort Bend
County Tax Assessor-Collector Marsha Gaines; Bee County Tax
Assessor-Collector Andrea Gibbud; BeII County District Attorney Henry Garza;
and Wichita County Auditor Deborah Stevens.
The members have requested that documents relating to unfunded mandates be
distributed to all county officials. Pursuant to their request, the
documents aze available on the TAC Web site at
<http :_//www. county. org/resources/l egi s/ufm ,asp>
The informational package includes:
* a resolution for consideration by county commissioners courts;
* a news release for local media;
* examples of newspaper editorial comments on the issue;
* a proposed referendum for the Republican and Democratic primary
elections on March 9, 2004;
* general talking points;
* examples of unfunded mandates stemming from the 78th Legislature;
11/13/2003
~l.ly, ~. U:: ~.
* examples of unfunded mandates stemming from previous sessions of the
Legislature.
County officials may download the documents from the above link and print
them to use as needed. If you need additional information, contact the TAC
Legislative Department at 1-800-456-5974.
11/13/2003