Travis County Commssioners Court
October 8, 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 7
Number 7 is to consider various issues related to the formation and operation
of the proposed central Texas regional mobility authority, including any necessary
legal advice, and take appropriate action. Legal advice would be obtained
in executive session if there is any. I think that I will have two or three
questions that -- when we go into executive session, which looks like this
afternoon we will be able to call it up.
>> okay. Is there anything, judge, pertaining to the backup
that we have for item 7? I need to go into -- as far as the [inaudible] aspect
of which you are suggesting?
>> I'm sorry?
>> I'm just saying the backup for item 7, you said maybe
some legal aspect. I guess tom would alert us if we get into legal because
there's some things that we have here, I know t.n.r. I think is -- -- have
backup, which I think should some of these things may have to be funneled
out of their particular department, but it was basically some things that
I had -- that I had asked on last time that we did not act on this. We really
wasn't posted to act accordingly to what was on the agenda. I asked specific
questions and we weren't posted according to ask those kind of questions about
the r.m.a. Of course I basically wanted to present these things to the court
and see what you thought about it and if you had a chance to -- to [inaudible]
go through this, got questions on it, we can go to those points. However,
I basically wanted to start out with the concept of hiring an independent
consultant. And I think that the -- that the study should be directed toward
the traffic volume and also determined if -- if projects -- projected volume
for toll fees will be in line with -- with the projected toll road costs.
The reason why I brought that up, because I think we need to look at where
we are going, we need to look at the volume of traffic. I think we need to
look to see if those fees according to the volume of traffic, the toll fees
itself will actually take care of some of the cost of --
>> okay. Let's try to address some of these. Tom, when the
r.m.a. Is set up, in order for the board to make determination about the feasibility
of certain projects, these studies have to be done.
>> right.
>> by the r.m.a.
>> as I understand it, the -- the critical point will be
when the authority looks at the financing of the project. And in order to
-- to get people to invest in the project to sell bonds for the project, they
have to be satisfied that -- that there's going to be enough traffic to generate
tolls to pay back those bonds, plus interest. And they require what's called
an investment grade traffic study, it may be the most important piece of the
whole picture. So that --
>> the authority is supposed to do that for the r.m.a.?
>> right. Yeah.
>> they will have to pay to have that done before they can
finance a toll road.
>> and presumably they will get their consultant to do that
for them.
>> uh-huh.
>> there's only two in the entire country that even do --
credible enough for the bond market to --
>> okay.
>> -- trust.
>> well, that's --
>> that's what -- one --
>> right. I guess the 1 a of that, the answer -- the question
that you just posed to tom, I guess that's actually answered because it says
identify what makes u.s. 183 a and 645 south or any other road feasible for
toll road projects in this region. So I guess within that, tom, is that still
part of -- of the study that will be conducted by an independent consultant?
I'm saying independent because I think we need to look at this outside of
the scope of -- of right here. I think somebody else needs to look at this,
also? That's why I said independent consultant. So I'm still leaning toward
that as far as the 1 a of this as far as looking at an independent consultant.
>> I'm not sure that I understand you. Are you saying you
think Travis County should hire an independent consultant to help the r.m.a.'s
consultant?
>> well, the point is I don't really know if the person that's
looking at this is independent from what's already there. I really don't know.
I know we have some figures and stuff like that, but -- what are we really
looking at as far as independent is concerned? Are we talking about independent
consultant being independent from what's really out there now? I really don't
know. I know that we are looking at the feasibility, looking at a lot of things,
I still would like to know exactly what we can do independent of where we
are now and if -- if the moneys are made available for such a study, then
of course the r.m.a. Or the money that is attributed to this particular project
would still be coming from that. Right now, I don't really know exactly where
that study is, who is doing it or who has done it, but there apparently are
some numbers, otherwise the 183 a project and also the sh 45 study project,
sh 45 south would not have been done -- [inaudible] -- there have been some
things already done on this. But whether they are independent of the realm
of what we do now I don't really know. I guess that's why I posed the question.
>> I guess the key question is what you regard as independent.
Because obviously whether it's independent or not depends on where you sit
and who is doing the study.
>> but right now the r.m.a. Has not been created. So no matter
what work has been done, once the r.m.a. Is created the authority needs to
get the study done. What we have working in our favor is if this is sh 45
southeast, we basically have the state's commitment to get it done. On 183
a, looks like the same commitment is there.
>> > okay.
>> so I guess the reason for that is both of these projects
really have been blessed by the state, which has the financial ability to
make them happen. These are priority projects for the state of Texas, right?
I know that sh 45 southeast is. And so we just put it in the r.m.a. Petition
in order to show that we were prioritizing it, too, but the commission, we're
saying, when we do sh 130, it doesn't make sense not to have 45 southeast
as a connector. So we were kind of, you know, blessed to have that happen.
I'm a little less familiar with 183 a, but I'm told that all of the affected
parties have blessed it. And so it will happen and the authority will just
do an additional feasibility study because I don't know that --
>> 183 a is farther along than 45 southeast. It actually
has an initial feasibility study. However, the -- the next phase of that,
the -- the owe owe the traffic --
>> investment grade traffic study, actually --
>> that has to be done. The r.m.a. Would contract to get
that. You have to do that, as I understa it from my research, there are few
entities in the united states that are -- that have the expertise sufficient
to satisfy the bond market. So you get one of them. And based on that analysis,
then you either have a promise or not.
>> right, it's really -- my take on it it's due diligence
for the bond investors because obviously a lot of studying has already been
done, you know, when you choose an alignment, do an environmental impact study,
et cetera, et cetera, you always have in mind that eventually the toll road
is going to have to pay for itself with the tolls. You are doing a lot studying
has already been done, you know, when you choose an al an environmental impact
study, et cetera, et cetera, you always have in mind that eventually the toll
road is going to have to pay for itself with the tolls. You are doing a lot
of, you are making a lot of decisions up front based on we think it's going
to draw enough traffic to pay the tolls. Especially in this case, since the
bonds have already been issued, by the state for sh 130, they did an investment
grade traffic study on this project, and -- 183 a and 45 southeast, everybody
regarded as integral, so to a large extent --
>> they are connectors.
>> -- to a large extent everybody knows that those are bond
worthy projects. So when it comes time to actually issuing bonds for 183 a
and 45 southeast, it's probably going to come down to looking at it again
and making sure nothing has changed from the time the study was done on shhh
130 because people have -- independent experts have sort of already concluded,
yeah, these are feasible toll roads. It's just a matter of before the bonds
were issued. I want to say look at it one more time, make sure nothing has
changed to make us want to invest in this project.
>> okay. On bids that -- what are travelers willing to pay,
I guess that a -- is that a part of the investment grade study?
>> yeah.
>> that will be conducted? What are the people that are going
to use the toll road really willing to pay to use that toll because that will
generate, at least have some kind of indication of what revenue can be generated
from the toll. That's being charged there. So, again, offsetting -- so b would
be a part of that same thing that you just mentioned, tom.
>> I think so.
>> okay. Number 2 on that, that Travis County must enter
into a contract with mike weaver to ensure accountability, contract must include
specifics that require mr. Weaver to keep Travis County commissioners court
and the r.m.a. Subcommittee notified of any information related to the r.m.a.
And the reporting and number a of that, relationships I think -- I think the
relationship aspect of that is -- is that -- that things of that nature have
to come before the entire commissioners court and to make sure that [one moment
please for change in captioners] otherwise, I don't feel that one or two commissioners,
is really the intent, I think the relationship should be enter the entire
commissioners court. The scope, the scope of work, of course that needs to
be specified in the contract. Then receive the deliverables, what -- what
have you to be delivered as far as the contract is concerned. Then what products
will be -- will be realized at the end of the -- of the -- of this contract.
I think those are very important. What can we expect for the investment of
the contract and the money that we are looking at as far as the investment
of that. The other thing, [one moment please for change in -- know who the
contractors are, the money that is spent with the contract, the subcontract
money is being made available for subcontractors, number f of that says will
be -- will the commissioners court approve the subcontractor. I don't know
-- I don't know if that's something that we need to look at, if it's a person
that we need to add because there may be somebody, a subcontractor that may
not be the subcontractors that we feel comfortable with as far as doing the
work. I think that's really important. That's why they were put in there.
So I guess tom, as far as looking at the contract itself, looking at item
2 of that is that something that Travis County can end up doing as far as
the contract is concerned?
>> the commissioners court -- if the -- however the commissioners
court votes to direct the purchasing department, issue a request for proposal,
a consultant contract, I will be happy to -- to provide legal advice on that.
You can enter into a contract with a consult fant that's what you want to
do.
>> okay. Number 3 is -- is Travis County and the r.m.a. Will
remain independent of each and I'm asking how -- once the r.m.a. Is on, how
can -- is formed how can Travis County commissioners court be independent
of the r.m.a. -- whether we have the authority in doing that, appoint members
to the board, what other type of relationship can there be after it's created?
Can we be independent? I think it's very important.
>> the r.m.a. And Travis County will be two independent --
government entities. You will both be political subdivisions in the state
of Texas. [one moment please for change in captioners] any kind of inadvertent
--
>> I know they've had discussions.
>> then number 4 is if -- one of our finance persons trying
to deal with Travis County, also bring discussions I guess when they come
before the commissioners court on particular items they think are very critical
to us on the financing end.
>> can I ask a question? That's a good question. Is this
part of the scope of work related to be financial adviser?
>> I guess -- I think it is because he was here not too long
ago and I asked him that point.
>> I'm talking in terms of his work that he's assigned by
this commissioners court. Do we have to -- is it so in a nairkly worded it's
whatever billable hours we throw his way -- because I do know in terms of
how -- I know v&e is actually related to the bond proceeds. Is lad's also?
Then if we've got things not specifically tied to the issuance of bonds where
there is a funding mechanism, that would be a discussion. If indeed we wanted
him to be brought in on this related to --
>> when we want lad here on financial issues, we request
his presence. We're not just expecting him to show up every time -- [multiple
voices]
>> but I think we need -- our contract covers [inaudible]
to get paid for it. We're going to ask him to show up.
>> this is not within the scope of something he -- [multiple
voices]
>> generous with his time.
>> we love him dearly, but I think we need to take a look
at the contract, I'm sure there are separate things we can have him look at,
but we need to talk about that.
>> number 5, basically indications that they will separate
the commuter rail district from the r.m.a. Because there's been some talk
that makes it combined or brings the commuter aspect under the r.m.a., Which
i, you know, so I wanted to make sure -- and there's been some discussion
this morning and it appears there will be a separate situation there. But
prior to this discussion on 5. Number 6, what are the implications for such
a rural district and that I think was basically answer third-degree morning
by tom saying that the sales tax, that their particular facility would be
imposed and I think after that as far as the [inaudible]. Number 7, [inaudible]
be sufficient to pay for construction, operation and [inaudible], and I don't
really know how, but maybe in the future, I don't really know how, but maybe
that's something that needs to come under the stud that I will be done by
the -- study that will be done by the -- if they would do a study on that.
>> I believe so, yes.
>> would it be something separate?
>> like I said, I think from the day a toll road project
is envisioned, you know, you've got to put it in a place where you think it's
going to be feasible from a financial perspective. So that -- I think that
-- the issue of a financial feasibility and how much traffic and what a driver
is willing to pay in the form of a toll is an issue that's always there and,
you know, you have to make some fundamental assumptions on that from day one.
You've always got that in mind and that always has to be a factor in your
decision.
>> okay. And will travis and Williamson counties be required
or need [inaudible] local taxes to supplement r.m.a. Revenue, and that is
something that I think has been basically touched on, but has there been any
indepth discussion on that?
>> i'll say from the conversations i've had with people both
here in Travis County and some of the other toll authorities in the state,
I think the conventional wisdom is for a toll road project to work, local
governments like cities and counties do need to make some financial contribution.
That's not a legal rule.
>> or the state.
>> or the state. It's not a legal rule. I just think -- again,
it's the conventional wisdom that in most cases it ends up being a multi-party
partnership with federal money, state money, city, county money to subpoena
implement the fundamental -- supplement the fundamental source.
>> that's what happened on the state of Texas tollway projects.
You have the combination of the t.i.f., You had the state of Texas money and
Austin and Travis County bringing forward moneys. You had the toll revenues
that would be brought. Actually the thing that sealed the deal was that the
state of Texas had to come in and say if it's not enough, we will pay for
the maintenance of those roads. And that was the thing, it was about a $50
million thing. They did it so that they would have all the moneys pulled together.
But again, nothing was done without the permission of whomever it is that
was being asked to bring money to the table. They couldn't impose it upon
travis or Williamson county. The r.m.a. Board could not say you must do this.
You would have to go to -- it's a negotiation. And the way we handled the
right-of-way for our central Texas tollway projects is that it was put on
the ballot and the people spoke and said please commit this money on our behalf.
>> in the other situations, did the local entities typically
provide for assistive right-of-way acquisition?
>> that's my understanding. And when they were talking about
a local contribution, the cities and the counties typically contribute in
the form of right-of-way.
>> okay.
>> okay. In the bid, will travis and Williamson counties
be required to guarantee loans and bond sales of the r.m.a.? And what will
be the effect on the bond rating of fees? [one moment, please, for change
in captioners]
>> I really don't know.
>> I think the only thing that I have ever to offer on that
is the local government is guaranteeing the project is not the typical relationship.
I don't know that you could rule that out and say it will never happen, but
again based on -- based on my conversations with other people that have --
that have participated in these projects and done these projects is that's
not the way it works.
>> okay. And -- and the r.m.a. Would be subject to requirements
of the -- of the national environmental protection act, napa, is that --
>> the r.m.a. Has to do an environmental impact study on
its --
>> I thought -- all right. The [inaudible] also process,
the process is also included in that, so -- so both of them are true.
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> does 183 already have a --
>> yes. They have been completely through the environmental
review process and they are basically in the right-of-way acquisition stay.
>> right, finding of no significant impact and a record of
discussion [multiple voices] I think we are already there on 183 a.
>> yeah, yeah, yeah. But also -- also the -- the public hearings
and then I guess the question is how will it be paid for and that's something
that I -- that I really need to hash out, because I don't know exactly how
much of the -- how much the process costs, e.i.s. And even going through the
meeting process, public hearings, all of these other kind of things. Then
what will the cost be? I think we need to know that up front. Since it's going
to have to come up under scrutiny of those two processes that I just mentioned.
So -- so I think we need to -- to find out the dollar figures on some of this
-- in fact if we have to boilerplate --
>> the only thing that I have ever -- that I have to offer
that is under texdot rma's rules that the environmental review is a cost that
the state says it's willing to bear. In other words it's willing to grant
money to the r.m.a. To pay the cost of those studies.
>> okay. Well, that may be leading into the next deal then.
Which is -- which is what will be the mitigation cost, because --
>> that will depend completely on the project. This will
depend on issues like how many lanes, how wide the road is, what the alignment
is, so you can only speculate on that.
>> > I guess -- I heard about the [inaudible] start-up costs,
administrative costs, things like that. But the question is will start-up
costs require a local max from Travis County -- a local match from Travis
County. I still don't know the answer to that. I think there are some figure
that's we need to find out, will that be a match, will the start-up costs
will be [inaudible] by Travis County or is that something that will be funded
through the sources that may be available to the r.m.a. Other than Travis
County? I really don't know. So, tom, do you have any comments on that?
>> well, I -- again, I can -- I can tell you what the texdot
rules say, which is that the counties that -- that form the r.m.a. Are responsible
for the r. Information a.'s operating costs -- responsible for the r.m.a.'s
operating costs. But I will also point out again apparently there is $10 million
worth of state money that the governor and transportation commissioners have
said they want to make available to the r.m.a. I think it's possible for texdot
to allow that money to go towards the operating costs instead of making it
solely a cost of the county's to form the r.m.a. But that's essentially a
business negotiation, you all have to enter into with texdot.
>> okay. So something that would be [inaudible] okay. And
I guess -- and I guess lastly, what guarantee does the Texas transportation
commission make to the city of Austin that their share of [inaudible] and
state transportation construction funds -- I guess -- in other words does
the r.m.a. Have an impact -- the question, will the r.m.a. Have an an impact
on the city of Austin receiving funding? So is that something that we have
looked at? Also since they will be basically a big partner in this. I guess
-- we need to find out whether or not the -- they are doing an r.m.a. Will
affect their future funding needs that they receive from the federal and state
government. So that's -- is that something that we need to embark upon, I
think --
>> from a legal perspective the answer would be no. I don't
think the formation of the r.m.a. Has any legal impact on the city's standing
to receive federal or state funds.
>> okay.
>> really the question is larger than that because the city
of Austin seldom goes before the transportation commission seeking a [papers
shuffling - audio interference] project on its own, general it is part of
the group effort on behalf of campo, which includes the city of Austin and
all of us. So it's the campo delegation going before the transportation commission.
Seldom is it the city of Austin because it's -- quite frankly there's strength
in numbers and bringing forward a regional plan as opposed to you are in it
for yourself.
>> uh-huh.
>> in addition, I'm going to conclude. In addition to what
we have been presented with as far as this is concerned, I would like to add
a couple of additional things to that. That's basically looking at with the
r.m.a. Itself, we are really encourang Austin to become a partner with us.
However, there are certain things that -- that we are looking at as far as
Austin metropolitan area transportation plan and making sure I think that
what we do fit into that plan and does not damage what they have on the table
right now. Even though the Austin metropolitan area transportation plan does
not basically -- does not basically agree with what's in the campo plan, there
are some variations in it. Of course I think those things need to be addressed
if we are going to continue to pursue Austin as a partner within an r.m.a.
Also I guess other points, that can be brought out would be the environmental
aspect of -- as far as what the plan, the creation of an r.m.a., Would it
really damage the -- the environmental sensitive areas, such as the save our
springs, things like that. And would we also comply with existing type of
such ordinances as that save our springs. So I don't really know all of the
answers to this, but I do understand that -- that there have been several
concerns that have been brought up by the city of Austin to be in partnership
and be just -- these are just part of this. So that's basically where I'm
at on that. And so -- so that's basically what I have to say this morning
as far as that's concerned.
>> while we're on this topic, before we leave, judge, I would
like to announce that there is a public hearing tonight on-- on the formation
of the regional mobility authority being conducted by the Texas department
of transportation, at their office on riverside drive. Do we have --
>> 200 east riverside drive. Room 1. A-1.
>> at 6:00 a.m. At that time I intend to forward to the commission
the resolutions that have been passed by the cities of point venture, lago
vista, Jonestown, Lakeway, village of bee cave, the village of the hills,
rollingwood, westlake and Sunset Valley on -- and the resolution passed by
campo and the resolution passed by -- forwarded to us by capco.
>> and commissioner, I wanted to let you know that I will
be going to the city of Pflugerville tonight to their city council meeting
to present the -- the proposed resolution in support on behalf of the r.m.a.,
It's hoped that they will also be so favorably inclined. Tomorrow night, which
is another meeting required on the formation of the r.m.a. That will be helping
our partner, county of Williamson county, at their community meeting room
in Cedar Park at 350 discovery boulevard, hopefully I will be there to also
add to it the resolution from the city of Pflugerville.
>> I know that commissioner Gomez and I did visit with the
mayors of creedmore and Mustang Ridge and they were favorably dispossessed
to -- disposed to put it on their agenda, so we will see action by then --
>> judge, I would like to make a motion as far as item 7
is concerned to direct staff to get back with us. I know that you said you
had a couple of legal questions to ask in the executive session. But as far
as what I presented this morning, I would like to have staff, t.n.r. Staff
to -- to get as much information as possible -- as we possibly can to the
questions that I posed this morning. And I don't know -- I don't know the
timeliness is one thing, but I think they have enough time maybe to look at
that. So that would be the motion is for t.n.r. Staff to investigate and get
as many answers as we possibly can on the questions that were posed this morning
[inaudible]
>> the best way to get take done may be just to request that
they --
>> direct it.
>> provide additional information if they have some. A lot
of this is kind of legal in nature I thought tom mentioned --
>> yeah, some of them are.
>> is this what you want joe to concentrate on, joe and carol
as they attempt to provide additional information.
>> yeah. I think so. Because there's some that we didn't
-- I know tom did come out on some of them, but some he didn't have an answer
on. So I would like to make sure that that's done as far as a directive from
the court --
>> I think they are going to be happy to answer any question
that you have of them commissioner --
>> so I just go ahead and get the answers to those questions.
As we go through this r.m.a. Process I feel real comfortable having the --
>> I think that will get done.
>> do we know if manor is going to be picking -- taking this
up? Commissioner, have you talked to manor?
>> hopefully there will -- they will be there tonight.
>> I mean, has their council taken an action on this.
>> I don't know. I don't think they have. I'm not sure. But
I know that they have been supplied the information to follow up on it to
make sure that they knew of it and then what they needed to do in a timely
manner it was coming up, they have definitely been informed and notified of
the meeting tonight.
>> thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM