Travis County Commssioners Court
April 8, 2003
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 39
View captioned video. (Entire item).
(Afternoon portion of item 39.)
Let's call back up 39. Call it back up at about 4:00. To discuss a response to 2459, I believe, the r.m.a. Legislation. Do you want to walk us through?
>> tom is probably making one minor correction to this, but over the lunch hour, we tried to get the five most important things reworded in the bill. The first item that you see is the reference to the campo transportation plan. We would have a provision -- we would add a provision to the bill that would allow the authority to design and construct projects only if they were consistent with the transportation plan adopted by the regional -- by the metropolitan planning organization. Which is the campo organization.
>> and this is what he had told us when it was omitted. He said that he had no problem putting that --
>> I believe you are right.
>> and this makes it very clear that it's the regional planning plan as opposed to any one city's transportation plan.
>> that's right. Did you make any amendments to it?
>> yes.
>> I corrected that typo.
>> all right. The second item is the board terms. And tom, you will have to help me with this one.
>> why only two years?
>> well, we looked at the statutory authority for north Texas tollway authority, and they have two-year terms. So --
>> what does hector have?
>> well, of course, hector, the board is the Commissioners court. They don't have a separate board. Harris county Commissioners court essentially is the hector board.
>> so in a sense they have four-year terms?
>> they are an elected board.
>> they are four-year terms.
>> it just seemed like a variety of options is working for the existing tollway authorities.
>> but what was representative krusee's -- I知 sorry? Did he seem to think that there was the potential for perhaps splitting the baby on this one and we want two, they want six that is correct he might go to four?
>> he didn't really indicate. His principle seemed to be the longer the term, the more confident the -- confidence the bond holders would have. When in fact we see that there are two existing r.m.a.-type organizations with much shorter terms of appointment.
>> I think six is, you know, consistent with a lot of the governor's appointments for things like tceq and the lcra and all those -- the higher education boards, they are six, so that they do go beyond a term and they are less likely to be political [indiscernible].
>> term being one thing, and then -- thinking about two-year term for the north Texas tollway authority. Also my concern is not only about term, but it is the accountability of those persons that we have appointed. Because somewhere along the line, some of the -- some of those folks [indiscernible] so they are accountable to somebody, they are accountable to the voters. I think we need to treat this the same way. How can we be accountable through our persons that we appoint to serve on the r.m.a. Board because whether we like it or not, if we sever ourselves from that, we must still be accountable to the local folks in Travis County. It's not separation for us in that. So the terms of one thing that I think having the ability to -- authority to remove these persons is something I think we need to instill -- to still hold on because of the fact we're going to end up being accountable anyway. That was my concern this morning. That's still my concern.
>> we did not address that, but -- the dallas toll authority have the same provisions for recall of appointees, so --
>> but are they elected?
>> they are appointed. So we just decided in the whole scheme of things, a shorter term [indiscernible].
>> well, how are we supposed to maintain accountability for the elected persons here, for the residents of Travis County? Because they are the ones [indiscernible] anything go wrong, they are going to look to the elected officials and why did you allow this to happen or how did you get this happen. We have to be scowbl I don't want to sever ourselves from accountability. I think we're responsible for the accountability -- for the persons that reside in Travis County. Now, that's a legitimate concern. And whether anybody likes it or not, that's reality. Accountability [indiscernible] hovment is going to be accountable, joe? So I知 still left with that to wrestle with.
>> judge, how do we want to do these? It's the kind of thing when we take things to the ledge, we want to take these things individually to see what people are landing on each -- where people are landing on each individual thing and then we land on a combined document or what? It seems like on the first one and he said talking about the n.p.o., We might land quickly on that one, but sounds like we have discussion on this second one.
>> seems like the only one with disagreement so far is the second one.
>> right. Because I personally think four year suits my needs. I think six is too long and two is not enough. This is a very complicated kind of assignment for somebody, and I think some people may just be starting to feel comfortable with their term is I think it's a whole lot better when we serve four-year terms as opposed to state reps having to run every two years and what can happen in terms of turnover. That's why I would rather see that being four and it shows movement on our part as opposed to digging in.
>> I don't want to lose --
>> prohibition against reappointment.
>> there's no limit on terms.
>> appointed for two more. I assume we stick with the reasons for termination that are in the bill. They require a lot more malfeasance than ours because ours simply says [indiscernible], right?
>> right.
>> I think what we said basically is removing the conditions of service which makes it more difficult to get rid of a person, but every two years you sit down, we put the value [indiscernible]. Why don't we just -- my motion is to do it like it is for two years.
>> i'll second that.
>> I thought that died for lack of a second.
>> no, I seconded it. But I just wanted to make sure that in the sense of some type of local control. I don't want to get this thing to get away from us where we do not have any control on something that we initiated and we're a partner in and we actually lose control of what we helped to create. Of course, I think that's in concert with the board members also. So I second that motion.
>> every two years, a motion and second.
>> I would like to try a substitute motion and that is that we change that from two years to four years. That would basically be consistent with the terms of each of us and how well that seems to work for this group, that it's the potential turnover every four years as opposed to every two years.
>> second.
>> there's a second by Commissioner Gomez. Any more discussion? On the substitute motion, all in favor? Show Commissioners Sonleitner, [indiscernible] voting for substitute motion. Voting against, show Commissioner Davis and me. So that leaves six years in there. If we apply our [indiscernible] rule.
>> actually we may have to go back to the main motion, judge, which would be back to the two years. That was the substitute.
>> I guess that --
>> what do we need to do? Because we're talking about something that goes on to the ledge, it's the four-person congressional --
>> a majority can carry our four. Let's see what the original motion for two years gets. All in favor of two years? Two people voted for. How many against that motion? So that motion fails. We'll start with six. I move that we just take out this altogether.
>> second.
>> instead of having this --
>> as one of our items.
>> we just pull this sheet. Any objection to that? I知 not sure I understand what the house bill 2522 initially is meant to say.
>> it's to authorize Travis County to have a say in the airport location in Travis County. So what we're saying, leave the provision in there about airports, but condition it to the authority that we already have.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> "lege",.
>> since this just keeps -- in my mind the bill as drafted takes away certain protection that's we currently have. This language makes sure things operate the way they are now with no change.
>> move approval.
>> can I just ask a question? I want to get to us a 5-0 vote here. On number 2, is there a problem with the use of the words "change the location of a portion of the highway." Most of our county roads would not at least in my mind of what a definition is of a highway fit into that category. I want to make sure that we protect ourselves on the howard lanes and -- [multiple voices]
>> the way it's defined in the bill right now, that would include county road. The way it's defined in existing law, it includes county road.
>> thank you.
>> I tried stay close to existing --
>> that's okay, I just wanted to make sure that I understand that.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> the next one, county role in existing r.m.a. This deals with the notion of a charter. The county by resolution would consent to the creation of the authority and thereby may condition the authority. That's the first part. The second part, acknowledges that there is already an existing r.m.a. Under current law. And that that would proceed on under the preceding -- under the law that existed at the time unless Williamson and Travis County by resolution granted an additional -- it additional conditions or deleted amended [indiscernible] charter.
>> clarification, does this get us past the other question that we had if we erase the preexisting r.m.a. That this is explicit authority that says our r.m.a. Still does exist?
>> right.
>> so it gets us -- kinds of a two-fer section in terms of that.
>> uh-huh.
>> second clarification, what if you have a multi county r.m.a., Do the two counties have to be in agreement or one is in disagreement, that charter applies to one county and another charter can apply to another county in terms of the consequences?
>> the latter. Williamson county's resolution would apply to what projects get done up there, Travis County would apply to what gets done in Travis County.
>> for instance, if we don't get want to get into the airport business, Williamson county says it sounds good to us, they can have a charter and it can happen on their side of the county line.
>> yes, right.
>> tom, on that last sentence, should that say add or eliminate?
>> well, I -- I put in eliminate because I was trying to be sensitive to one of chairman krusee's big concern was in the r.m.a. Wanted to do a project, voted bonds on it, the county could then come back and add a new restriction that killed that project. I don't know that he would accept the county being able to add restrictions that basically add un certainty to what projects the -- the r.m.a. Can or cannot do. So -- so I just put in eliminate thinking the way the county would want to operate is start out restrictive as projects the r.m.a. Could do, but basically, you know, consent or loosen up those conditions as circumstances change and the r.m.a. Wanted to do counties projects on down the line that -- that maybe the county didn't want them to start out doing. So -- you can obviously say at or eliminate, but I think if you said the county could add restrictions at any time, that uncertainty element that Commissioner that chairman krusee is I think fairly sensitive about is going to go way, way up.
>> let me ask you a question, because I read into the context of the existing charter for our existing r.m.a., After this law is passed, how do you perceive the charter to go forward? Under its existing or with the court -- would the court resolve to expand the authority of this r.m.a.? In other words, right now it's limited to toll roads.
>> right. 183 a to be specific. If it wants to take advantage of the full authority enabled in this bill, how would they amend the charter of this r.m.a.?
>> if they wanted the r.m.a. To be able to do any project with no restrictions, the court just wouldn't adopt a resolution. The resolution would just say we want the r.m.a. To do any project in Travis County under any circumstances.
>> which is what they want.
>> pardon?
>> which is what they want, the r.m.a.
>> maybe.
>> for example, if the Commissioners court didn't want the r.m.a. Pursuing the airport initially or you could even handle the campo plan with this charter idea. And adopt a resolution that says in Travis County, the r.m.a. Can only do a project if it's in the campo plan.
>> we need to make sure that we explain what this section here is intended to do or not to do. Can I get one more clarification? When we say a county amending, is that implicit that that means the Commissioners court?
>> we can add that clarification. That was my assumption.
>> well, I知 just thinking in terms of the -- in my recollection is that the original r.m.a. Legislation made specific reference to Commissioners court and I would want there to be no -- no disagreement as to who we mean.
>> that would clarify things.
>> we are trying to do a power play on this thing for you.
>> my sums is that nothing happens at the county unless the Commissioners court approves it.
>> are clairety is -- clarity is better as opposed to not. We are going to take out only if the Commissioners court in that county aadopts or whatever such words --
>> yeah. If the Commissioners court of the county aadopts the resolution okay,.
>> move approval with that change.
>> second.
>> my more discussion? Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> make sure that you explain that one [laughter]
>> these are the major changes that we think.
>> well, they are -- we believe areas of concern. Also areas we believe that chairman krusee would be somewhat receptive to.
>> so if these changes are made, we think we can live with 2459.
>> that's a statement for you tall make, not for me to make.
>> probably.
>> probably.
>> largely.
>> but I知 still concerned that -- about whatever the voters have approved in the local area I think ought to be fold. Because I am concerned about people thinking the voters -- the voters thinking that they have been deceived if we don't carry out what they have voted for. And that damages voter turnout. So where do we need to put that in later?
>> let me understand. Because I -- anything that we have authorized debt for as our obligation to implement, the r.m.a. At this point wouldn't have any control over those.
>> okay.
>> we will fulfill those obligations.
>> okay.
>> in the future --
>> well, we always have. But I知 just thinking, I don't want anything to --
>> prospect actively, if we -- prospectively, if we agree to issue new debt on behalf of the r.m.a., It's likely that we are going to go to an election to do that.
>> uh-huh.
>> so again, I don't think we are going to just give our money to an r.m.a. Without some sort of contract or agreement.
>> okay.
>> well, that's what the chairman, you know, brought up. I mean, he said that I don't think you ought to have a problem with that because if you all are going to issue debt, you are going to have to go to your voters. So he -- he understood that.
>> okay.
>> move that we reconsideration the vote taken on the second item.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Move that we support the Sonleitner motion which is to change two years to four years.
>> second.
>> on the theory of a little bit is better than nothing.
>> I think it will go over well --
>> yeah.
>> all in favor?
>> let me ask one question, though. I知 still concerned, as I stated earlier, about the -- the accountability phase as far as us having control of the board members of the r.m.a. It's a real problem for me if we lose control of the person that's we appoint. So that's -- so that's still a problem for me until I can come up with the resolve, to figure out how they are going to be accountable to us and that hadn't been resolved yet, even in this motion, that hadn't been resolved. So I -- it's hard for me to support the motion when I知 giving up I think authority to r.m.a. Board members who aren't accountable to us. Anymore. And as we intended when we originally moved forward with this r.m.a. It was very precise and clear in my mind that we would want to be in control. I think what we are doing is -- it appears that we are supporting [inaudible] that control, I can't support moving that kind of control when we first initiated this thing. I heard -- I haven't heard anyone say anything different as far as accountability to the folks of this county. Right now they won't be be thable to anybody. -- accountable to anybody. Definitely not to us.
>> who appoints the board? Commissioners court.
>> we did. We appointed them.
>> I would say we try to have [inaudible] over time we will know more about to cover specifically.
>> right.
>> the first one we are just kind of reaching basically. But as the -- as I experienced with r.m.a.s increases, I would think that we would have a better feel for area that's we need to cover of what kind of commitments we need to get before we make that appointment. I guess the other thing is that on most of the one that's I know about, unless you really get cross-wise with the appointee, if you say the majority of the court lost confidence in you, we want you to step down, there's nothing to keep you from stepping down. It just means that we can't pull you down.
>> that's --
>> we ought to appoint people with enough integrity if it looks like we have lost confidence in their ability to represent us, then they will step down. I don't know if there's any law to keep us from getting a commitment before we make the appointment, huh? When the time comes if the court is unhappy with the performance, will you step down.
>> [indiscernible] [multiple voices]
>> I think my only observation, Commissioner, is that -- I think this was pointed out by our conversation with chairman krusee, it's really an issue of checks and balances. The r.m.a. Has to have a certain level of independence, but at the same time, you know, you are the entity that created it. You are the entity overall responsible.
>> for it.
>> and to create certainty maybe it's not good for you all to have too much authority over the board members. But you have got to get the -- you know, a check and balance in some other way. To the extent the campo plan and the charter idea gets you there, then -- you know, maybe you can live with a little bit longer term because you can exercise accountability in other ways. At least with respect to what projects in the county the r.m.a. Does.
>> I guess what I知 saying, though, is that from what I heard this morning, maybe allegations, maybe some -- some basis of fact to it, though, but when we have board members testifying, in support of these bills, as far as the r.m.a., And then I have no idea, no one came to me and maybe other members of the court, but I don't know if anybody of the court heard from the r.m.a. Board members of Travis County testifying in support of the bills and we didn't know what their reason for supporting -- in other words, to ask us how do we feel about the bill. That -- in my mind that's out of the realm what was we should be doing here as far as them being responsible for the folks and the interests of Travis County. That's why I have a problem. I知 having a real, tough problem with this. I don't want to lose that. I don't want to lose that accountability for the folks of Travis County, I just don't want to lose it. If they act in that posture, I think we need to look into that. I really do.
>> well, tied into that, Commissioner, I think what I remember last when they were here, we interviewed them, we made it real clear that they may have to be going to the state legislature because right now they are a vehicle with no steering wheel or tires related to the bonding and the condemnation authority. And if -- if we want to make sure that they understand what the official position of this Commissioners court is, then I think it's incumbent upon us to have those communications with them, but quite frankly, I could see where they would think that their last instructions were there's some work to happen over at the state "lege", it's going to be in your hands. And so -- so, you know, if indeed we want to, we need to make sure that they know about our votes today. I think that's our responsibility to tell them, as opposed to us thinking that somehow they have gone outside of boundaries when the reality is they are fully constituted, they are now room board members. R.m.a. Board members, if they feel strongly about something, we teed to let them know about it instead of them thinking -- instead of thinking they were going around us.
>> I can't help but think something would have happened --
>> I didn't know about the bill myself.
>> we didn't take the position because we didn't know about the bill.
>> right.
>> so as I said, the more we work with the r.m.a., The more we will know what bases we need cover.
>> shouldn't we verify that that did happen. We think that it did. I would think we ought to send something, I mean from the court, that says any time -- even -- that didn't -- we understand that somebody did speak before a bill and we did have some issues and perhaps next time we ought to -- we would like to be given the consideration of saying, hey, I知 going to go, are you all signed on to this thing.
>> oh --
>> communication is a two-way street.
>> I wouldn't mind sending something saying we would like to know when you are going to do that.
>> any more in the discussion to change the two years in the second amendment to four? All in favor? Show Commissioner Sonleitner, Gomez, Daugherty and yours truly voting in favor. Voting against --
>> no. Abstain on the reason that's I spoke on and testified on.
>> that is why -- [inaudible]
>> so now I move that we authorize staff to draft a short cover letter to these amendments that says basically we -- we deeply appreciate your meeting with our representatives last Friday and discussing the intention of -- of hb 2459. And following up your request that we provide any input. We have -- we have attached five simple amendments that we believe would greatly improve the bill.
>> second.
>> thank you for affording us this opportunity.
>> and local accountability.
>> okay.
>> to be signed by all five members of the court.
>> yes.
>> I will try to make that real short where you all can maybe get it done in about 30 minutes. Did I do that? We have Commissioners court stationery in my office. We will be in executive session probably up to 30 minutes, we will be able to decide in there. Okay. All in favor of that? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> a real quick update on the sovereign immunity bill.
>> did you want that now?
>> he told me about that. I do think this is a bill that -- did we address that earlier?
>> we didn't vote on it, no.
>> this is like the owe owe [indiscernible] other side, basically what the bill would do is -- it changed. As of last week it got out of committee, on the senate side. Where in any contract that if there's a dispute that the individual could -- could file a lawsuit against the county and it's questionable as to whether the county has -- has allowed that lawsuit to be filed. By way of this new bill.
>> I have learned to ask, who is the sponsor of this bill, who is the piece of legislation on the senate or house side that is also the sponsor of this bill.
>> wentworth was the sponsor on the senate side. And nixon is the sponsor on the house side. And he has skidded -- scheduled, the committee chairman, scheduled a hearing on his bill for tomorrow.
>> I think we ought to notify cuc --
>> cuc has made changes to the senate bill. It was much worse. They made changes to the senate bill. That's why the substitute was as it was.
>> I think we ought to contact the elected officials of various counties and ask them to contact their delegation members. If we open up that, then [inaudible] may go.
>> the cuc legislation luncheon tomorrow as well. I know that I will be there, Margaret are you going?
>> direct staff -- we need to take a formal vote and our position would be to direct I guess our people to get a copy of whatever amended draft they are working with now and if it says what we think it does, to indicate our opposition.
>> with the intent of protecting the county's -- established right to sovereign immune tie for -- immunity for these kinds of lawsuits.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Let them know that we unanimously did that. I do think we ought to -- the groups that we have gone to with other county officials, like capco, I move that we authorize the county judge to draft a letter to other county elected officials in urban counties, contact them directly, maybe ask cuc to do the same thing, the best way to get that done. I will share it with the court. You all cannot provide me feedback, can you, john?
>> we will provide whatever feedback we can, sir. To you directly.
>> members of of the court.
>> to you directly.
>> well, I will take that draft and --
>> if the court would delegate that authority to you, you can draft it however you choose.
>> that sounds like a plan.
>> that's what the court voted to do. All in favor?
>> it's a different kind of sovereign immunety. Immunity.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 9, 2003 1:25 PM