Travis County Commssioners Court
November 12, 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.
Item 7
All right.
>> number 7 is to discuss the Texas transportation commission minute order creating a regional mobility authority and take appropriate action.
>> judge...
>> okay. We have before you a minute order that was presented -- that was actually passed by the transportation commission on October 31st. And so according to the rules we are to consider the minute order and to pass a resolution accepting it, if it is acceptable to the court. The thing that the minute order does, it creates the rma. It establishes the board of directors that will be comprised of seven members, three by Williamson county, three by Travis County and presiding officer by the governor. And then the geographic area is also designated, Williamson county and travis counties. And the initial turnpike project developed, maintained and operated by the rma is stated as u.s. 183, but just by stating it, it doesn't mean it's finally approved as a project until further down the line. The -- I guess the idea now is to discuss the fact that it does not have state highway 45 mentioned in it. And I know we just wanted to --
>> well, judge, let me say something before staff continues. On the October 31st at the Texas transportation commission, this particular issue for the order authorizing the completion of the central Texas regional mobility authority would be -- that was a minute order issued. And there was testimony given to the Texas transportation commission based on several things. Number one, I guess the minutes were gathered from that meeting of what were discussed, but the thing that I brought up at that time -- and commissioner Sonleitner was there and mike krusee and I think mike olive was the one that may have spoken. But anyway, the thing that I told the Texas transportation commissioners was that the minute order was missing some things such as the original petition that we had submitted. We also had sh 45 southeast and, of course, it was not a part of the minute order that we end up getting signed off on by those folks. And the point I wanted to bring up was not only that sh 45 southeast not being a part of that, which is very integral part of tying into sh 130 as it's being constructed, I felt it should have been in there. I did get a chance to speak with mission commissioner hilgenstein and also commissioner boatright with Williamson county and they said that the minute order should -- didn't have any problems with the minute order reflecting sh 45 southeast in it as part of what Travis County is trying to do. Also I brought up the point of funding, start funding because I think commissioner Moore has been hammering on that for a while. Where do we get the money to start up this rma process? Start-up funding is very necessary. And, of course, the commissioners at that time said, well, -- we knew there was a set aside of about $10 million to distribute funds, but the state of Texas transportation plan, but within that $10 million, how much will we need, Travis County and Williamson county need to get this project up and going? I didn't have an answer for them at that time, but they want me to come back with some proposals to suggest what we felt start-up costs would be. I also further stated in that conversation that this has to be the best as far as personnel is concerned as far as getting the proper person in mind because the do's and don'ts of these things I think are very critical. So that means to me that we have to have some folks on board that know about how much total road -- generation of revenue would come for the construction and the infrastructure and that. In other words, if a project is looked at as a successful tollway project, then it must have all the attention given to it to ensure that that projection comes up. So a lot of this is all inclusive in the amount of money we're looking at as far as start-up funds which we do not have. But they wanted us to come back with some of those particular -- with those particular requests that -- I say they, meaning the Texas transportation commission as far as where we are and we're we're trying to go, including the sh 45 southeast and other things like that. And, of course, staff has been looking at this to see what implications it would need to be made. And there was a response I think from txdot. I think bill russell, that may have addressed some of those concerns that was brought before the ttc, Texas transportation commission as far as not only minute order, but a whole lot of other things that we can look at. But I do know we have to have the funding in place for this to work properly and successfully. And in listening to the other tollway authorities in the state of Texas, we do not want to make any mistakes in this process and ensure that this is a road business and, of course, the customers are here that will be using the tollway, so we must do things right from the get go to avoid any type of failure. So staff, of course, has been looking at a lot of this and a lot of information has been shared and some late information that has come in. So those kind of questions are definitely significant as far as this minute order is concerned and the answers tho those questions.
>> so what is the story on 45 east?
>> the reason that 45 east is --
>> 45 east is not part of the minute order. [ inaudible ] we will have no authority over 45 southeast. What I'm reading in bill russell's e-mail is that minute order right now does not include 45 southeast. It's currently constituted, and it will not be one of its projects. Further in his e-mail he leaves open the possibility of whether or not it will ever be an rma project because tta itself may be doing 45 southeast. What he's saying is that decision will probably not be made for another year. So I don't think you can make a decision today with any certainty that 45 southeast will ever be an rma project. I think you have to go with a minute order as it is, which is 183-a.
>> yes, I agree with that, but I don't think it's a cause if alarm. 45 southeast never -- never was as far along as 183-a. We knew that all along, but we always wanted to send a signal that it was a project in which the two counties would have an interest for the rma to play a role. What that role might end up being is as yet to be determined, but there's groundwork to be laid for 45 southeast, much like the groundwork that's already in place for 183-a. So I think it's something that it's going to get built whether the rma praise plaiz a role in it or not is up to the rma board in how they negotiate that.
>> that's fine. Just so I know the story and can relate that story to people in the southeast who are interested in having that.
>> okay.
>> the road is going to get built. The nice thing would be for the are. Ma to play a role.
>> but it could play a role in the future. Rma would play a role in the future.
>> we'll look at it from the high level of will somebody make the link? Great. And the state, and that can offset the expenses related to sh 130, which there is a whole other segment of 130 that is not financially viable down in the caldwell county. That is a good thing to have that link made because it might make the viability of the other segment of 130, which is really the big vision of sh 130 going from seguin to georgetown and beyond.
>> right. But the other thing that -- 45 southeast, the alignment could possibly change as well or are they saying that it will remain in Travis County?
>> they haven't decided that.
>> they haven't decided that at all.
>> not the southeast yet. We're still -- the environmental alternatives and all that, environmental work hasn't been done. They're just starting that right now.
>> so it's possible that that whole alignment might change?
>> just a bit.
>> in the official document for sh 130 there was a reference made to sh 45 southeast?
>> that's correct.
>> what was that language, do you know?
>> all I know is that the language on 183- a and 45 southeast was virtually identical.
>> sh 130 and reference made to 45 southeast?
>> yes. Using the same language to which that document referred to 183-a.
>> they committed to do it by a certain date.
>> well, if it gets done, I don't know if it matters to me whether it's by an rma or -- I think if we approve the proposed order, them we certainly ought to send a cover letter that says basically our understanding is that sh 45 east will get done. We have $90 million invested in sh 130 and we'll all look silly if there's not a way to get to it from 35. And I was left with the impression after chatting with the state officials that when the sh one 30 was done, sh 45 southeast would be done, it would be a can connector.
>> it could be a change order.
>> the other thing is that I guess I have some concern if the Travis County is expected to spend money on 183-a. That was never our commitment. At the same time, there is a long list of potential projects. And if the boards make that decision, that is fine with me. But I'm -- I feel we're not creating an rma just to do 183-a and stop. After 183 is done I assume the other project is done. [one moment, please, for change in captioners] that administrative r.m.a., Through the greation of the bonds.
>> -- through the creation of the bonds.
>> absolutely.
>> that the money set aside by the state will probably not cover those start-up costs. They will cover the feasibility studies, but not the administration of the r.m.a. Itself. And so once -- what you will have, at least for a period of a year, perhaps longer, a burden of -- of -- of the administration and the r.m.a. Will be that of travis and Williamson county. You have set aside right now a quarter of a million to do that -- of a million dollars to do that, that may or may not be enough.
>> with the understanding that that -- I agree, based on conversations that we've had. But the proposed order does not require that.
>> no.
>> and as these things unfold, it seems to me that there will be the need for further understandings. Once a board is appointed, as long as the board understands that the r.m.a. Is to do really projects beginning with 183 a is fine with me. But at the same time I think that our understanding, the understanding that we ought to try to get is?? that the second project would be in Travis County. Otherwise how do we look Travis County voters in the eye and tell them this is a good deal for us.
>> actually, on that list there was only one Williamson county project.
>> everything else was --
>> so that?? was the understanding, too. When we?? chalted with -- when we chatted with Williamson county the understanding was that we would -- really before the r.m.a. Came up, we were told 45 southeast would get done, which is why it made sense to put up $9 million to get shhh 130 done. You see what I'm saying? So a whole lot of understandings have been underway but there's only one proposed order appeared that order, I mean, as we go along, I'm looking at the writing, I'm recalling conversations at the same time, the specific commitment is in the proposed order.
>> judge, you brought up a good point. Along with that, I -- you brought up a letter to ensure a document -- whatever we want to call it, to ensure that -- that shhh 45 southeast is recognized. I -- and again, I haven't heard any opposition to -- from the Williamson county representative that it should not be a part of this process. Now, I guess my whole question is on the?i legal end of this, tom, what kind of [inaudible] can be gathered to -- to maybe not a binding letter, but something that legitimizing what we are discussing here says hey, look, sh 45 is a part of what we intended to do in the original petition for the r.m.a., Not only that, it's an integral part of the format and footprint as far as sh 130 is now. Again the voters of Travis County want to hear something from us. So what -- is there any legal instrument that we can use to maybe -- I think the judge brought up a good point, to -- to address that issue of shhh 45 southeast -- sh 45 southeast, but do it in an understanding that we definitely want this to happen. Is there any legal format that that could be?i captured within --
>> we have already got it. It's?r called the bond documents. They committed in the bond documents.
>> but I'm as far as -- hold on commissioner. As far as what we are doing here this morning. I know there's a bond document. But I'm saying as this goes forward, what type of language could we use? Because once we approve this minute order, if this is what the court is willing to do, there has to be some attachment of language to suggest?i that who we are doing, -- I think that you are looking to the minute order. Because of the roles that texdot aadopts odd regional mobility authorities -- adopted on regional mobility authorities, the [inaudible] is the charter for the r.m.a. Like the minute order currently reads that the initial project will be 183 a, if it is your intent that you want the r.m.a. To?? begin examining 45 as the second project then the place to do that would be in the?? charter. Which is the minute order.
>> except that the minute order is promulgated by the -- by texdot and not?r?i by us. So it seems to me that really the pressure point that you have?r on that is with the r.m.a. Board and you are going to appoint three people to be on that board and they will get to have the visit with you about what specifically -- how you want the r.m.a. -- I will point out this: ?? the 45 -- in order for you to -- to submit in the petition including 45 southeast, you had to have the same kinds of things we had for 183 a, which was a basic design with a -- with the projected cost, blah blah blah. Right now that's getting done. It's getting done on the state's time. This is true working on that. There will come a point when the r.m.a. Will be able to say texdot will take that off your hands. It's not right for that at this memento be in that minute order -- at this moment to be in that minute order, but I don't think there's any reason to assume that texdot wouldn't be open to that proposal by the f.m. At the appropriate -- by the raism at the appropriate time when the information is available.
>> along with that commissioner, those are really good valid points, but along with that, if the minute order is the confinees of project that's would be funded by the state, the state is working along?? doing those thingsc@>% right now, which?i is fine, but if the minute order is the?r body whereby a project will get the blessings by must be identified within the minute order. And that's my understanding is that we must -- it has to reside somewhere for it to get the blessings, even though the design is not where it should be, this is not -- the environmental stuff is not where it should be. But the bottom line is for it to get the blessing of future funding, by the state, it would have to be within the confinees of the minute order -- confinees of the minute order. That's my understanding --
>> we are getting caught up here in the word minute order. We are very used to a minute order applying to a specific project. This minute order is related to the creation of the r.m.a. I'm where Margaret Moore is. This is no reason to panic if we really look carefully at the language on the minute order. At the top of passenger 2 the central Texas r.m.a. Will benefit the state by constructing needed?? projects, such as 183 a. It doesn't say only 183 a. It says for example that's one of them. And in terms of the the creation of the r.m.a., The area the initial turnpike project. Not the only turnpike project. But the initial turnpike project shall be 183 a. This is a vrb?i telling sentence. This order does not constitute final commission approval of the project. They are also stating that this has to do with creating the body that will oversee this process?r and identifying a?? specific initial project. It doesn't say that there are other things that are knocked out because they are not mentioned. It also does not say just because 183 is in here that somehow they are going to have to go to the same process that is clearly laid out in the transportation code. I'm not at all -- notice about this particular thing, it just puts into play the body we know as the central Texas r.m.a. Doesn't make 183 a reality. It doesn't make 45 southeast, not a reality. It just gets the process moving -- again I think the language is very specific about the process, not any one project. Which we are very used?i to. When we say minute order, like with the manuscript order lays down -- minute order lays down what is the county's contribution, what are the expectations on the project, not the governance.
>> the only thing is that that language tells me that it opens the door to projects, yeah, the first one could be 183. But what about that southern part, 45 southeast, because it's the southern part of where this traffic is coming that we want to get off of i-35 --
>> let me --
>> let me walk you back [multiple voices]
>> seems logical to have 45 southeast in there.
>> but let me -- in the meeting that -- that we -- that the judge and I first attended with commissioner nichols where there was a?i discussion, 45 southeast has to get built. He told us that. The only reason we got it in the r.m.a. Petition was because it would be a good project for the r.m.a. To get to do because it will generate revenue. It wasn't about getting it done. It's about our getting to participate in getting it done. The -- the -- the building of 45 southeast is not dependent upon whether the r.m.a. Gets to do it. The building of 45 southeast is a critical piece of making the whole 130 project work. And it was clear from the get-go that texdot knew that and knows that and whether we -- the r.m.a. Gets to do it or not is -- is a separate issue. Now, it is -- it isn't whether or not the road is going to get built.
>> let's say going back to the purpose for 130 in the first place was to get traffic off of i-35. And so if we can get it off as soon as possible, 45 southeast, get it on to 130, it just seems --
>> that is totally where texdot is on that.
>> more than anything else than 183.
>> but they made that commitment in the bond documents is there a controlling legal authority? You betcha. They made those commitments signed in August that 183 a would happen on their dime, 45 southeast would happen on their dime. If the r.m.a. Doesn't step forward and do it, they are already locked down that they have to do it [multiple voices]
>> we are moving forward on it anyway.
>> let me ask a question andthen i'll have a mosmtion the question is historically Travis County has done something to evidence our agreement with a minute order.
>> that's correct.
>> this looks as though we are not asked to do anything except read the order. Are we expected to respond to it?
>> the [inaudible] themselves that texdot approved for r.m.a.'s requires the counties to accept in terms of a minute order, in spite of what the e-mail says.
>> I'm looking a the minute order now.
>> I know. The rules adopted by the commission would have you accept the minute order.
>> they are resolution.
>> then my motion is to --
>> then my motion is to owe judge, judge, can I claire too that. The minute -- clarify that.
>> it may not matter --
>> I did think we ought to get it on the table though.
>> okay.
>> because we do nothing that's in the minute order -- my motion is that we draft two letters. One to the state that says basically t.t.a., The commission and whoever else needs to see it. That's on -- that says basically that we receive the minute order, that we notice that sh 45 southeast, the favored Travis County project is omitted, but that we understand that since our negotiations about shh and agreement to pay our -- pay the cost of one-half the right-of-way, sh 45 southeast has been viewed as a critical project in order to -- to facilitate the movement of traffic from 35 to sh 130, something to that effect. You see what I'm saying? The end being that our understanding is that sh 45 southeast will get done at the appropriate time, notwithstanding not being part of sh -- not being part of the regional mobility authority minute order. In whatever -- whatever nice language can be used there. The thing, though, is to capture?r our understand[ne that shhh 45 southeast will get done.?? and basically the condition -- to condition our acceptance of this minute order on that -- on that conclusion. The second letter is to Williamson county and it says basically that we are glad to see the proposed minute order from the state of Texas. We do notice that sh 45 southeast is omitted. But we understand that based on previous negotiations, discussions with the state, it will get done. But we do think that in order to continue the fine spirit of cooperation between the two counties, which will create the -- the r.m.a., That there needs to be a Travis County project. Therefore we believe that it's important for the board to understand that its work is to complete projects in Williamson county and Travis County and I think we ought to let them know that our understanding that is the second project done by the r.m.a. Will be Travis County. Based on Williamson county's response to -- to this position in the past, I don't see any problems with it. The scary part is that if you have seven individuals who make up the board, who knows what ideas they will come with? I think we have to give them this idea. Now, I don't know that I would say -- I mean, us partner is really Travis County spending money necessary to help administer or to enable, empower the board to carry out its -- its duties and responsibilities. Early on the only project that would be working on is sh 183 a. The I -- I think the taxpayers would like to see we are doing whatever we can to make this investment a good one from Travis County. We will benefit from sh 183 a I assume.
>> I cannot stress that heavily enough. Many residents in pnlt 3 -- precinct 3, it is a very important project.
>> but I guess I'm concerned about one that we have this understanding with Williamson county, which doesn't deviate from what we have been seeing in the past. Two, I think we ought to hand the new board something in writing that indicates here is our thinking on at least your first two projects, if they look at the -- at least the first two project they will see a whole lot more projects than in Williamson county. I think if we do this in writing at least it evidences our position now and our understanding of what will develop over the next few year
>> and it -- in terms of -- 's 13,251 permanent residents on the north shores of Lake Travis and I think it would also be good for us to reference that -- that there are city of Austin residents in Williamson county who will benefit from 183 a and just the fact that they are in another county, their primary body is located in Travis County and it's good for the city of Austin and Williamson county, it's for the city of Austin and Travis County as well. And one of the projects that -- that may surface to the top, that we had on the -- on the wish?r list is 290 east. Which would be of benefit to residents of williayn county because anybody coming down?r from georgetown, Round Rock, et cetera, that gets on 130, the likelihood that we?? want them to jump off 130 into the city of Austin is not via martin luther king, jr. And coming in through that route, going through neighborhoods. It's to access 290 east. That is something that very logically is a connection that needs to be made and xld be of benefit to Williamson county folks, even though the project is wholly located in track. It's a linkage with 130.
>> can you get all of this on one page? [ laughter ]
>> take your best shot.
>> let me ask --
>> there's a motion, second.
>> seconded by commissioner Gomez. Yes, sir?
>> I just wanted to ask -- to ask tom a question. Is there any intention for sh 45 southeast to be included in the minute order, judge, I think the recommendations that you made are excellent. But I guess my point is to really see that financial commitment come through, that -- as far as Travis County is concerned, a minute order in my mind is the arena to do that in. Is there any prohibition at this point to include shhh 45 southeast within the minute order? As -- as it stands now?
>> well --
>> as it exists at this point. In other words, we amended the minutes order,?? we want to send it back to sh 45 southeast.
>> I think -- you can include in the minute order whatever you can persuade the Texas transportation?i commission to include. So there's no -- there's no prohibition on it. I think the issue is as commissioner Sonleitner pointed?r out, the net effect of saying 183 a is the initial project is sort of saying this is the first project that the r.m.a. Is going to work on, all that you are really saying is it can't work on any others before that.
>> right.
>> if you throw in 45 southeast, then all that you are really saying is, as soon as they are done with 183 a, the first project that they have to start looking at is 45. We are not saying it has to be done or that texdot has to let the r.m.a. Do it. You are just sort of creating a sequence.
>> right.
>> if you don't [multiple voices] put 45 southeast in the minute order, the r.m.a. As soon as they are?i?i through with 183 a [mt"?r(&q .?ices]
>> I think the way that it is right now it adds the northern part of Travis County to put --
>> other end, right [multiple voices]
>> even though they have to put a priority, if you accept that as a friendly to have the -- have it as 183 in the initial project, but also --
>> [inaudible]
>> in the minute order --
>> I think we ought to make?i clear sh 45 southeast gets done, whether it's an r.m.a. Project or not.
>> I understand. [multiple voices]
>> I am not arguing with what you are saying. I just wanted the sequence of things to happen because once the board gets established, they may not pick sh 45 southeast. I don't know --
>> what our understanding is, Williamson county and Travis County is saying the same thing, it would be a different matter, I think, if there is a response letter from Williamson county that says, we are unable to commit to this.
>> I have already talked with commissioner boatright and also --
>> I think that -- [multiple voices] I guess one other point that I would like to bring out, that is when commissioner Moore and commissioner Sonleitner and I went down to san antonio again commissioner Moore brought up the start-up moneys. From that standpoint, look at them however, there -- there are -- we mention some firms that have done an excellent I don't know for the authorities, including the best in the country. So as far as start-up funds are concerned, one thing that I did pose to these transportation, Texas transportation commissioners, was how much money do we need? And that -- that also includes, judge, looking at the amount of money that these persons are going to come on board to do these projects, we have to have the best to do it. So that start-up money is still -- the question --
>> that money is still in Travis County's bank account, though, right now.
>> right.
>> and before we make a transfer --
>> , I'm talking about the $10 million that's --
>> that's state money, right.
>> they understood that they would we would be asking them for some assistance on start-up funds as far as what we would like to see happen going on with these projects, how much money we would need from that $10 million, I pulled the question, they said find out how much do you need. [inaudible] right off the top, that's my concern.
>> going back to mr. Russell's e-mail, basically they are conceding, we know that it's true that sh 45 southeast is just getting underway. It is not developed to the same level of detail. I think it would be very appropriate for the new board if after a year or 18 months there seems to be no movement on sh 45 southeast, then you approach the state saying, excuse us, you have to sort of butt it in your documents that this thing would be in the ground by 2007, if you are not going to do it, then can the r.m.a. Step up to the plate. It is quite possible related to a lot of the costs related to basic design project costs, financial data, et cetera, that it's already been paid for by the state on 183 a. If that can happen on their tab, that is just one less thing that the ram is going to have to seek start-up funds for. And let it happen on their tab. They may let us finish it the same way that they are letting us finish 183 a. So me it's like there is no reason to be alarmed by what the language in -- this is a minute order, talking about the creation of the governance structure and citing an initial project. And that's great. That's a good thing as martha stewart would say. I think if we take the state's word, between several months back and now, it is that shhh 45 southeast is credit -- is critical to 130. If we see them slowing down, the r.m.a. Is moving to a second project, it seems to me that's the time that we insist that the board pick it up because the state get moving. But that's why I would -- in a letter I would say that -- to the state basically our understanding is that you were committed to completing sh 45 southeast, which we all agree is to critical to sh 30.
>> these letters will go to Williamson county, the state --
>> two separate letters, one to the state [multiple voices] the other Williamson county that really talks about our understanding, our agreement with them about why we agreed to create the r.m.a., Our agreement gnat first project would be sh 183 a.
>> that's correct.
>> our understanding basically that in order for the board to operate, it's got to have some -- some money. And up to this point the agreement is basically for both of us to make it go. That our understanding is that the second project will be a Travis County project and if 45 southeast is not done by -- by a significant progress toward -- it has not been done by the time it's ready for the board to consider a second project, then we think sh 45 southeast ought to be the one or another Travis County project.
>> okay.
>> I think that's a good approach.
>> it has to be carefully worded.
>> very carefully.
>> you don't want to be overbearing, but at the same time we ought to be honest and straightforward. I'm talking about agreements and conversations and understandings that have been clear. This is not new stuff. It would be new maybe for us to reduce it to writing, if you have a problem this understanding, if so we need to know right now.
>> all right.
>> the question -- that information -- that you just suggested for the -- as far as the format of a letter, will it come back to us.
>> yes, sir. A letter that we have a chance to review.
>> okay. Make sure that the language is typed to point that --
>> yeah. We have -- we have discussed it at length today. I don't know that it's necessary to put all of this in the letter. I would make it a payment, page and a -- a page, page and a half if possible. Is this making sense? Now, I wasn't about to ask you to sign this letter. I was going to get the court to sign it.
>> as they should. I think the full court should sign it.
>> joe, do you have any comments on --
>> no --
>> pardon me?
>> I understand.
>> > okay.
>> all right.
>> it wouldn't be a bad idea to say basically a minute order surprised us in that it covers one project rather than two, but we understand the reason why or we think we understand the reasons why, then, boom, here they are. But I would conclude by saying if this is not so, please let us know. Or something to that effect.
>> yeah. Because they used very specific language. Call the question.
>> is 45 southeast in the campo plan?
>> yes.
>> then the r.m.a. Can take it up. But they will still have to negotiate with texdot to get their approval to move forward with it. It's really -- that simple.
>> okay.
>> if it's a viable toll road, the r.m.a. Is going to want to build it -- but they will have to get permission from texdot to do it.
>> all in favor of the motion? That passes by unanimous vote. This will be back on the court's agenda next Tuesday.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM