Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 22
Mr. Manila is here.
22. consider and take appropriate action on an interlocal cooperation agreement with the city of Austin concerning county participation in the development of rough proportionality methodology.
>> good afternoon, judge and Commissioners, I'll steven
>> [indiscernible] from t.n.r.
joining me is anna bolin from the development services divisionment one of the things that we do when development occurs in the county is evaluate the -- the implications of that development upon our transportation system.
and in many cases we'll -- we'll ask a developer to provide funding for improvements to those roadways that -- that their development is directly affecting.
and in a way that we use to determine how much funding should be provided by that developer is a methodology that we use at t.n.r.
and it's -- it results in a figure that is roughly proportional to the -- to what that development is causing to occur.
with the additional traffic.
the methodology that we've been using is quite old.
it's been used since the early 2000s and we're aware of other entities using more modern methodologies.
what we would like to be able to do through this interlocal agreement that's a part of this agenda request is work with the city of Austin, they have a consultant under contract that they want to use to -- to take a look at what -- at what san antonio, I believe, has used, which is -- which we believe is a better model and modify it to fit our needs here at Travis County.
we have different construction cost, different types of -- of developments going on.
and so we would like to -- the court to approve us to -- to enter into the interlocal.
it will -- it will cost us $25,000 out of a $50,000 construction contract or engineering contract.
and -- and we would -- we would recommend approval of that, but before you do that, we do need to work with purchasing on some language in the agreement.
but -- but rather than totally delay this action for one week, we did want to talk to you a little bit about the model and -- and I believe maybe tom wants to -- to provide a few insight as well.
>> not really, steve.
>> okay.
>> [laughter] okay then, that's fine.
>>
>> [indiscernible] I guess what I'm trying to digest is how that may relate to title 30 I guess in some ways, the city is involved in this in some way, shape, form or fashion?
under title 30 then, in the relationship, how does -- I'm trying to see how it works with that relationship with the city of Austin.
>> I request answer that question, steve.
>> thank you.
really, the rough proportion nationality doctrine was created by the united states supreme court sometime back, it applies to the government any time that you're issuing a development approval and you condition it on or require the developer to provide public infrastructure or some sort of public benefit.
and it's basically designed to prevent the government from using that permit as leverage simply to extort things out of the developer.
say, for example, a city council had a permit pending before it and they knew that the local school needed new band uniforms and they told the developer, well, we will approve your development if you give the school money for band uniforms. Well, of course, band uniforms doesn't have anything to do with that developer's project and that's sort of an extreme example, but I do it just by way of illustration that -- that the purpose of the supreme court creating that doctrine was to say okay, local government, you know, you need to show that what you are requiring from this developer is literally needed to offset the impacts he's having on the public.
and one thing that's driving the city to do this is that the Texas legislature actually took that a step further and they passed a statute that -- that basically said the city has to get an engineer to put his seal on the rough proportionality requirement.
that doesn't apply to the county -- we are not subject to the statutory requirement that an engineer -- I think that's what's driving the city to push this a little bit harder than we have.
but we do have an interest in having a -- having a defensible, solid, rough proportionality methodology, so I think that it is in the county's interest to pursue this.
I think it will end up somehow being codified in title 30, assuming the methodology is acceptable both to the city and county.
>> and in title 82.
>> what are you saying?
>> I would anticipate this would also be in chapter 82 as well.
elsewhere in the county.
>> can you all speak a little bit to the transparency gains take we anticipate with this?
because I found it intriguing that we would be able to put the formula into a calculator, essentially for developers to be able to plug in their numbers and see what staff would be doing with them.
>> right now with a preliminary plans comes in, we put that into an excel spreadsheet and in that spreadsheet there's also a -- a sheet, worksheet in the spreadsheet that speaks to the travel sheds and the costs associated with that.
and it's somewhat of, you know, a black box that we give the developer this spreadsheet after we've run it, all the information, but it's -- it's a little bit cumbersome.
our costs are outdated.
I mean, we've been using this method since 2003 and it would be very nice to -- for the developer to get to fill in some of the boxes come up with a number that we would get to review and start the dialogue that way.
so it would -- it would initially start with them.
>> go online to do that as well.
>> uh-huh.
I know that the consultant that the city is looking at has we're interested in has done rough proportionality used variance of this model throughout the state in small jurisdictions, large jurisdictions.
I mean, to my knowledge, they haven't been challenged yet and so far it's been defensible, which is what we want.
>> you mentioned a state statute that had -- implemented recently that affected municipalities when I was looking through the backup on this.
are there any state statutes that -- that differentiate between the municipalities and the county from a standpoint of ability to implement this?
are we looking at a common rough proportionality model and does that in the unincorporated, I can understand the title 30, but the unincorporated areas is there going to be a difference there this how we can utilize that for purposes of the fees that we may like to -- to -- to require in association with this?
the statutes granting authority to the cities and the counties to regulate subdivisions in the e.t.j.
are very similar.
so there's not a whole lot of difference in the legal power that the city and the county has.
remember, this is outside the city limits.
home rule cities only have home rule authority inside the city limits.
outside of the city limits, they're just like the county.
they have to look to a statute to have the legal authority to regulate anything.
and the city and county platting statutes are very similar.
>> for the e.t.j.?
>> yes.
>> but what about the unincorporated areas?
how would this apply for that?
>> the county's authority in the outside the e.t.j.
is the same as inside the e.t.j., so the underlying statutory authority is really similar.
the legislature has come in and put this extra requirement on the city that they have an actual engineer seal on their rough proportionality analysis.
>> does the formula, is that -- these associated with that determination, are they required to be paid up front at platting?
>> well, essentially it -- it's a requirement to either construct a road or post fiscal security to make sure that it's constructed and, yes, the fiscal security is required to be posted before the final plat is approved.
>> so this basically is a transportation impact fee?
>> it's not a transportation impact fee.
it's a requirement that they construct an improvement and to post fiscal security so that they cannot, you know, walk on that commitment.
>> it only applicable to the road immediately adjacent to the project.
>> not necessarily.
not necessarily.
an impact fee would be the city or the county saying to the developer write me a check and give me money and I will go build whatever road that I want to build.
this will be a requirement to build a road, undoubtedly will be somewhere in the vicinity of the subdivision, not necessarily abutting it.
but probably very close to it.
and to, you know, to secure that commitment, that requirement that they build the road, we have long required posting of a letter of credit or bond or cash.
>> but that's -- let's look at an arterial, for an example in this situation.
would that -- would that, an arterial, you could actually require maybe right-of-way.
>> yes.
>> that's something that I think that's probably can also be laid out that you -- that you can require right-of-way.
not only that, you could probably require for
>> [indiscernible] to the road be -- be money be placed in -- in helping developing build that road, construct that road.
so I think that it's a little far reaching than what we -- you know, it has a lot of depth in it, I think.
but I guess at the end of the day, we come back and we see exactly what the model is, what bexar county, the other folks are doing, just appears that this is something that could be beneficial to the county, especially when you got a situation that -- that affect us in the e.t.j., under title 30, hopefully driven with the city of Austin.
so I -- so i.
>> if I may, some of the types of improvements that we would be looking at for the developer's contribution on are some of the things that we currently see brought to court with phasing agreements when we do preliminary plans.
it's just a -- a way to be sure that we're asking for something that's appropriate and is roughly proportional in that window of amount that's roughly proportional.
>> I should clarify, we're doing this now.
we've been doing it for a long, long time.
we're just looking for a better model to use.
>> use, exactly.
>> if you come one a better model, will that come back before the court for determination?
>> absolutely.
>> reference is made to the san antonio model.
do we plan to survey Texas jurisdictions to see what the best practices are?
>> we certainly can.
my understanding is this firm, you know, the city given the house bill 1835, they -- you know, we wanted a new model and they wanted a new model and it was very pressing for them, given the requirements of that piece of legislation.
and they have this contract or this firm under contract for their Austin mobility strategic mobility plan already.
so in looking at what -- what work that they have done throughout the state, with jurisdictions of different size, that's how they -- they kind of rose to the top.
>> I would feel a lot more comfortable, I guess, hearing them explain why they have ruled out the models in the other areas.
I don't know that I necessarily know one better.
but I've certainly heard some other jurisdictions mentioned.
and, you know, not to be critical of bexar county.
but I hadn't heard that one yet.
so -- so it's pretty easy to do, isn't it?
>> I think the city has done some amount of searching and looking at other models, I just can't think of one off the top of my head.
>> we are paying half the fee, so -- so I think we ought to do more than ask for a check or sign a check.
>> yeah.
>> so who are the point people at Travis County?
>> it would be anna.
anna bolin.
>> are they looking -- half legal or -- more --
>> fully legal.
>>
>> [laughter]
>> more planning.
>> we don't do anything that's not legal.
>> [laughter]
>> I mean legal work.
>> [laughter]
>> well, it was a doctrine created by the united states supreme court.
and as you are well aware, different lawyers in town look at it in different ways.
so there are a lot of legal issues involved.
>> that was my point.
>> [laughter]
>> lets get anna some help.
>> just a point that I had heard.
I don't know if this is hearsay or not, but I heard one of the interests was in expanding the area of consideration for -- for developing the rough proportionality formula.
and I would like to know the justification for that.
if that is the case.
in the process.
of looking -- you may not have the answer to that now.
but if that's -- if that's driven by one thing or another, why.
>> I can answer part of it.
there was also a Texas supreme court case on this issue.
with a are the state spect.
ed out in the rough proportionality you can look at the traffic on the whole road network.
because obviously the traffic from the development does not necessarily stay on the roads that abut the development.
they drive throughout what we have come to call the travel shed.
the state supreme court said you can look at the impact they are having on roads all over the travel shed.
obviously you get into practical difficulties when you tell the developer you are having an impact on that roadway over there, you have got to go widen it.
he is saying well that's two miles from my development.
it makes more practical sense, I think this is what we were talking about earlier, it makes more practical sense for him to improve the roads right around his development.
but in determining how much improvement he's genetic to make, it's clear you can look at the whole road network or the whole travel shed, so to speak.
>> when the study comes back, will we be provided with the backup that shows the area, the population projections, the basic criteria under which the evaluation was done?
I think that I would be very interested in seeing that.
I don't know -- I mean, only because I have a problem with some of the campo mod dealing.
so I would just like to see what the modeling parameters were.
how that was done.
>> absolutely.
>> on a similar point, one thing that has often flummoxed me as far as our ability to have these agreements is that tom help me out on here on this, with the particular developer, you can come up with a rough proportionality formula for their impact on the roadway network, but not their cumulative impact.
so developer a paid for his individual impact, developer b paid for his individual impact, developer c paid for his individual impact, but by the time you get to developer d, a, b, c, had a cumulative impact actually greater that the sum of their parts.
which this won't take into consideration or will?
>> I don't know that it will look at -- at developments throughout an entire travel shed.
it's somewhat of a guess as to what could happen in the travel shed.
but what you are describing is essentially the genesis of many of our c.i.p.
projects.
>> right.
>> and --
>> that's the thing we keep running up against.
if you are looking at it in a silo for just one project, it's not considering the cumulative the effect of the other three projects impacting the same portion of the roadway network.
we are actually barred from having a tool from that at this point.
>> move approval.
>> judge, it's --
>> if you don't mind, I would rather not approve it today.
the purchasing office would like to --
>> [multiple voices] -- work the language in the interlocal agreement.
they wanted to add a few lines to it.
>> what's the source of funding.
>> consulting fees that we have in our development services division, t.n.r.
>> that mean you have to come back.
>> next week.
>> we would like to come back next week, yes.
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> we don't need a full discussion next week, will we?
>> no, sir, I don't believe so.
>> okay.
anything else on this item today?
we'll see you next week.
>> thank you very much.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
