Travis County Commssioners Court
October 1, 2002
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.
Agenda Item 5
Number 5 is to consider options for Travis County to appoint board members to a regional mobility authority and take appropriate action.>> good morning.
>> this item was simply to generate discussion as to what you would use as a criteria to -- to select your board members, if they are -- if the r.m.a. Is approved. In September we approved the petition to petition the texdot to be a member -- to become an r.m.a. Along with Williamson county. As a result of that, there are several things that will happen. The October 8th and 9th public meetings, as well as you will have to select board members assuming the r.m.a. Is approved. This agenda item is simply to -- to discuss what criteria you might want to have. We simply pulled together some -- some criteria from -- from what we saw in the -- on the net of various toll roads, toll authorities.
>> you got your information from where?
>> we went to the net and got most of the information from the toll authorities as they -- an issue -- some of them came from the r.m.a. Rules, we just pulled together various things. It's nothing etched in stone. Simply to -- to foster discussion.
>> okay. What is the -- what is -- we were just -- something here from mike weaver. Rules. Is there any variance in -- in what we have in our backup that -- that our review, compared to these rules that was handed to me this morning?
>> i don't have what you --
>> no. I just distributed those because i knew they were going to be presented to Williamson county. I don't -- there's no -- no difference.
>> but i guess my question is, are there any variance with the staff --
>> no.
>> okay. So basically they are the same?
>> yep.
>> it just gives you the violatations, commissioner, in case you wanted to go to a specific part of the r.m.a. Legislation to know where exactly those things are --
>> okay.
>> well, i do have some questions. Could you explain staff to me, rule number 8, what will be the impact with that? As far as the -- as far as the -- item no. 8 there, as far as one of the criterion, criterion number 8 i guess we will call it.
>> right. Well, it was simply to make eligible persons who have -- who had -- may have had -- received funds from texdot, but not from the r.m.a. Whereas rule number 2 is that you have not received any funds or have any relationship with the r.m.a. With any of the projects. And -- and 8 allows you to at least have some -- some relationship perhaps with texdot.
>> okay. That's part of the problem that i have. I -- i'm not ready to -- to really do anything on this today myself. There's a -- there's a lot of things that i think we need to do. And -- as we go through this process. In fact i think 8 outing to be -- ought to be deleted altogether because of past experience that a person may have had with texdot and texdot being an integral part of this, it may be some sense of conflict. But to look at this, and i guess the public not knowing maybe some of the stuff that we are doing and how we got to where we are today, which has been a pretty -- pretty long process. This is just nothing that --that's that just came up last week. It's been basically a long, long process that have been -- have been covered over years, let me say this right off the top. I'm 100% of a central Texas regional mobility authority, no doubt that -- that my support has been there for a long time. Since we started looking at this project, not this particular project, but as far as looking at a a way to look the our transportation and mobility situations here within Travis County, in fact, Travis County, something to look at rta, regional toll authority, to look at those possibilities to see if there's a way whereby if bonds and things are issued, how could we -- could we take that money, reinvest it back into other projects within Travis County. -- we looked into the r.t.a., We also looked into the possibility of -- of maybe the possibility of creating an r.t.a. Here for Travis County. However, -- however not knowing at the same time about that same time frame, there was legislation that was being introduced through the -- through the state, which was the regional mobility authority. And after finding those particular things out, we wanted to make a comparison between r.t.a., The advantages or disadvantages and owe on and advantages and disadvantages of an r.m.a., So we did a comparison by comparison analysis of these two type of authorities. In July of 2001 we had a meeting here of the commission, where we invited several county judges from adjacent counties to come and testify before the commissioners court. These things were done and -- and -- they voiced their concerns and later that year we had a -- a work session, a workshop, inviting all of the parties looking at this -- at this r.m.a., Looking at the r.t.a., And making a comparison. This was done in September 22nd of 2001. In san marcos. And from that meeting, we invited of course several persons looking at what the possibilities are. However, in November of 2001 the voters unanimously supported an amendment to actually -- of creating an r.m.a., Regional mobility authority in the state of texas. And when that was done, of course, we looked into the -- into the possibilities of an r.m.a. So we have gone through several hurdles. To actually do just that. Also in that same year of 2001, of twowp, November, on -- 2001, on November, on the ballot, the voters overwhelmingly approved several right-of-way projects for Travis County. And of course we have issued some of the bond from that voter initiative. We have also gone through looking at a partnership with -- with Williamson county in creating a regional mobility authority. Actually the central Texas regional mobility authority. I think we are probably the first of all of the regional mobility authority possibilities that are in -- are in a further along the road disposition than anybody else in the state. There's a local agreement with Williamson county, of course there were several things that we looked at. Of course actually a partnership in a sense. Now, you think the voters -- i think the voters and taxpayers of Travis County must understand this. It's that the issuance of the bond in 2001 November, is separate and distinct, it's just basically for right-of-way acquisition. And of course what we are doing here, this is -- going through the creation and petitioning for a creation of a central mobility authority. Those are two separate and distinct things, and they need to be handled as such. And discussed as such. Now, after -- after we have finalized basically the format of the interlocal agreement with Williamson county, we have gone to another hurdle. And setting up many -- i guess avenues i think on which we must travel to come to an end. For this particular process. Travis County, of course, has a significant outstanding -- i would like to say bond rating, because that's what it is, it's a triple a. I think the voters need to know what is the significance of a triple a bond rating. I would like to ask lad to comment on that. As we go through this process. However, looking at the board members that we are asked to -- to set criterion for them to be elected to an r.m.a. Board is what we are doing -- it is an intricate part of the process. However, i want to go back to the bond ratings of a triple a, what does that mean for Travis County. If lad can explain it to me, explain to the public, i don't want the public misled in any shape, form or fashion of what we are doing here. [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> one question would be should we appoint any. And if what you're saying is leading up to your position that we shouldn't appoint any, then that --
>> it will be at that point, judge.
>> right, i understand that. But if we have the authority here, and of course, the board members are an integral part, and i think it's fiduciary to ensure that we do -- the county will not be held accountable for members that do things as far as issuance of bonds and a lot of other things that would jeopardize the rating of Travis County's bonds. And that's what i'm concerned about. And i think the taxpayers are concerned about that also. But i think this item opens the door to any discussion of issues relevant to the process we use to appoint board members, including no process at all.
>> and i really didn't want to act on this today because i'd like to have some --
>> i think what we ought to do today is try to determine how we go about making the decision to establish criteria for an appointment. And so my thing today is we would basically get directions, have a discussion, try to put in place some sort of rough schedule that would enable us at some point in the future to act on this.
>> okay.
>> i don't know that anybody thought we would actually appoint members today.
>> absolutely not.
>> no.
>> it would be okay -- what kind of people are we looking for. My own view is that with the information given today it seems to me that we maybe ought to get a subcommittee to work with staff to try to bring back to us recommended specific items. There is a list that tnr hurriedly put together. There is information that was provided in the stuff given us today. So i see like a little committee, maybe a subcommittee, trying to work, it would be my thinking, over the next week or so, put together specific criteria, bring that back to us and we look at it. At the same time it wouldn't hurt to get input from some of the groups that have been active on rma's up to this point, maybe the chamber, maybe send it to the city of Austin. After the other day, Austin la brock is supposed to meet with joe anyway. Maybe get Austin to provide whatever input he wants to provide. It wouldn't hurt us to have common criteria, to the extent that is possible. And us saying that -- roughly, here is a schedule that is doable and that we hope to work towards. Do you see what i'm saying?
>> right.
>> so my thinking is today we'd have that discussion, try to give more specific directions that would point us in a direction of being able to make specific decisions in the immediate future.
>> right. And my concern, judge, i guess -- and not disallowing anything you've said. I think it's very appropriate,. But my concern is this, and that is that -- and i think all of us probably have this in the back of our mind, how do we protect the investment and the integrity of the taxpayers. I feel like a lot of tough questions still have not been answered. And it means to me that i may need to put an item on the agenda to answer some of these tough questions, such as an contract, such as an individual consultant and things of that nature. So that may help us come to with an agenda on -- an item on the agenda in the future to help have some control on some things that need to be addressed. That's basically where i'm coming 42, from, to ensure that the integrity of the taxpayers are protected at all costs. So that's where i'm coming from.
>> i think there are issues if there are issues we need to address or questions, we need to have an agenda item broad enough to allow that discussion. It would help maybe even just to have the questions or issues presented up front, maybe given to tnr so they can try to provide as many of the answers as possible and for us to have a full discussion in court.
>> i would like to put that on the agenda for next week, just word it broad enough so we can get these tough questions answered.
>> and judge, tied into what you were talk about the process, and i think that's where commissioner Davis is trying to go, is how do we assure folks we are doing the proper due diligence. We are the first rma in the state and everyone wants comfort in the process. And these are folks that people can have respect for. And what was mentioned last weekend at a meeting that commissioner Moore and i attended over at the chamber, it was their subcommittee of the transportation group. And what was mentioned there is the -- nan clayton is the league of women voters, is a respected, nonpartisan group of folks, and it was suggested to her that perhaps her transportation group of the league could work on, for lack of a better word, a resume, the kind of -- a job description, the kinds of qualifications and things that we would be looking for in a board member. And i think we're also seeing that in the memo. And really, commissioner, related to you having individual problems with, you know, any particular restriction that is or is not in there, these are not restrictions that travis and Williamson county have said we think this is what it ought to be. This is what it is, and if you or as the city of Austin was told the other day, have disagreements with this, it's going to take a change at the state, and that is not something that seems to be forthcoming. These are the rules that we're going to have to go with. And really what that last one says is, let's say you were a business person whose property was taken as a result of the ben white freeway expansion in central Austin. What it means is that just because you got paid right-of-way money for that txdot project, that you wouldn't be declared ineligible for an rma project as long as you don't own any kind of property related to any of the rma ones, which right now are highway 183-a and the southeast portion of state highway 45. So we would have a lot of potentially good candidates who might be declared ineligible simply because there's been this history of the world related to txdot projects. And if something has absolutely nothing to do with an rma project, they shouldn't be eliminated simply because at one point somewhere, sometime somewhere totally disconnected from the rma they may have gotten right-of-way dollars that they were entitled to because they happened to be located on the state highway system. The rules appropriately say that if there is any kind of right-of-way situation related to an rma project, of course that would be a huge conflict of interest, but these are rules that we try to -- tried to change as best we could with the input of Williamson county, but these are the rules. And, again, if folks have disagreement with these rules or anything else related to the rma legislation, that is going to take a change and it's going to require the whole legislature to say, we think that's a good idea and to know that the governor of the state of Texas is going to sign that legislation. That is -- i think the rules are what the rules are and we're just trying to figure out the process on how are we going to go through this. If indeed the transportation commission passed favorly on travis and Williamson counties application on the end of this month, there will be expectations for us to have a board in place because, quite frankly, for representative krusee and senator bear yes or no toes and other members of the travis and Williamson county delegations over the state, it will be much easier for them to press for changes that are absolutely necessary in the rma related to condemnation and bonding authority if there is an actual rma to talk about and there's an actual board that says we are moving ahead. I think we're closer to a year and a half to two years ahead of any other potential rma that may be out there. So we need to make this have the best case possible to take there, and we need to be able to act if it is the willingness of the transportation commission to act on this. I think as representative krusee said the other day, we want it to look like the state is waiting -- we're waiting on them and not the other way around. We need to do everything to have a process in place that everybody can have confidence in and to get good folks on this board from travis and Williamson counties.
>> i remember when txdot submitted some rules and we looked at them as far as creation of an rma, i remember very distinctly and the rules were really not flexible enough for us to even -- so we made several comments to the rules to ensure that these rules that txdot has proposed as far as the creation of the rma will be flexible for Travis County. And of course by making comments, working through the Travis County commissioner's court, the entire court, the commissioners, our comments were submitted and those rules were changed. Now, i guess my point is i have not worked with Williamson county, per se, on these and i have not discussed these rules with anyone except staff, who presented them to me. And it appears that the direction of where we should go should come from the whole court. And i really am going to hold firm to that because i think it is a joint effort. And, of course, not knowing of the meetings that are being held and the rules being brought back as such, those rules, i think if the direction is given from the court, can be modified. Now, personally, i really don't know what those conditions are, what comes under criteria number 8, what kind of conditions and stuff like that, but on the surface it appears to be a conflict of interest. Now, it may or may not be, i don't know, but the bottom line is that if it's a direction given from the commissioners court that we would like to visit this rule and maybe eliminate it or whatever else, that direction needs to be given from the court and i think that's the only way it should go it from the commissioners court.
>> i agree.
>> that's why we're here today.
>> it seems to me that if we have a list of qualifications, then under there we ought to separate the ones legally required, whether by statute or agency rule, and the ones that are optional in our choosing.
>> kind of an overlay.
>> the other thing is it does seem to me that it would be easy but important to come up with an application form that we would use. Then the question is would we request or require a resume in addition to it? Then i think if we're going to have the persons or groups that we would want input on, i can think of chamber of commerce, league of women voters, the transportation committee?
>> yes, sir.
>> city of Austin, Williamson county, txdot, rma folks.
>> reca. Omebody on transportation.
>> what about capital --
>> capital area transportation coalition.
>> and i think that those who have been active, we ought to solicit input from. And i guess the question is at what stage? Seeing that people are typically in a much better position to respond to like a specific draft or an idea rather than asking them generally what do you think.
>> i agree with that.
>> and what else can we think of that we need to do.
>> and judge, we actually do have attached in the one that Margaret brought this morning, the memo is what actually the governor uses in terms of their application process. And again, there may be some good ideas as well, although i don't think you're allowed to photograph --
>> but in terms of a reference source, anything that we think would help us?
>> right.
>> has this information been shared with tnr, this information we just got this morning?
>> we just got it.
>> the tnr would be the point person. Who would that be?
>> and jewel and elaine.
>> all right. So if we work with you, you will make sure jewel and elaine are involved.
>> yes.
>> what two members of the court want to take this on.
>> i would be happy to volunteer.
>> and i would be happy to volunteer.
>> i think that it is none to soon to begin the process of identifying the process, because if the commission does approve this at the beginning of this month, now October 1, the end of this month, and we're looking to ratify the minute order, adopt the minute order at the beginning of November, that gives us a short window to make the appointments before the citizen groups get started. I think a decision to dpin.
>> our goal would be when the legislature gets to town, i assume that we've gotten the necessary approval from txdot to be able to show basically we're ready to go.
>> right of the. To go.
>> so we're kind of self-imposing a window of between now and the end of the year.
>> yeah.
>> which would be probably about the beginning of December because the reality is that with holidays and all --
>> two months.
>> i would say.
>> that sounds good to me. That way we have an opportunity to -- so if the two of y'all work with staff to get done what we've generally discussed, when will we expect back like a report to the commissioners court?
>> three weeks, two weeks?
>> two weeks.
>> can't be one.
>> can't be one. I'd say two: let's do two.
>> and i would like to add capital metro to that list. They are stakeholders and we're the ones with the money.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> capital metro.
>> money talks. [ laughter ]
>> i think the elected officials who worked with us, we would want to include them. I think some of them are logical, representative krusee, senator barrientos, mayor garcia.
>> mayor garcia.
>> but i think mike olig over at campo would be on the distribution list as well.
>> i'll put campo. Does he have anybody on there designated to work on rma.
>> now that allison schultz is now leaving, i'm not sure.
>> maureen.
>> you're right.
>> i remember when we first started this process in the first meeting, we did have a financial advisor involved in this. And i just think they should still be around as much as possible. I think it's very important because -- and when i spoke earlier, i did mention that i wanted to present behind this particular regional mobility authority and i've gotten started on when i did, however i think we need to look at safeguards and i think we need to do due diligence and all, so our housekeeping i think are very necessary in this process so the taxpayers will know what's going on. Thanks.
>> we will have a general discussion item on next week. It would help if you had questions or issues -- i would say if you get that to us as part of the backup by Friday for the whole court, we'll make sure we share that with everybody and give folks the weekend, Monday to take a look at it. Some of these i guess we need to get to y'all so you can give us a thought, maybe prepare some sort of responses. If we get it by Friday, is that enough time for you? Or should we shoot for Thursday?
>> Thursday would be better.
>> i've been trying to talk y'all out of so much weekend work, so if we get it to you on Thursday, you would have Friday and Monday. Can we shoot for that? If there are issues, questions, concerns, put them on a list. And what i would do is just take whatever i'm provided, give it to the court as backup. Rather than trying to do something with it. So it will be whatever i receive i just copy forward. How's that? Anything else that we need to say on this item today?
>> do we need actual action or is it just direction that commissioner Moore and i will work on this and bring it back in two weeks?
>> i think that the record is sufficient. What we said here not to be parameters, but just kind of suggestions to get you forward and other ideas will probably come forth as you work. And i would say act on them as you deem necessary and report back to us. We'll provide the formal feedback.
>> i think the intent of this is it's going to be a living document. It is to grow and mature, but again i think it is designed to meet, i think, commissioner Davis' concerns. And that is that people have to have confidence in this process. That is not a bad thing.
>> right. The other thing is if we're working on Williamson county on this and these five people make up one board or seven, whatever the number is, it kind of would help to have the same criteria, if possible. But if there are matters that are critical to us, then i think we have every right to require additional qualifications of our appointees. So while our goal should be to come up with one set, if we need additional stuff for our folk, my guess is we ought to do that. Irk and to make sure when the actual blending occurs, we want to make sure that this is a board that represents the diversity of this community and all meanings of that work. If we work separately and then you put them altogether and you wind up not meeting that. So there needs to be a lot of interaction between the two counties about whose being named and to have some names that could be passed on to the governor as other possible folks who are interested, but are out there.
>> i try to take pretty good notes of our discussion today, but you also. If you need a copy of mine?
>> i will take a copy of yours as well. I wrote as much as i could, but i'll take a copy of yours as well.
>> okay. Anything else on this item today? Okay. Let's have those directions and plan to review this matter with the court in a couple of weeks.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM