Travis County Commssioners Court
May 20, 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 28
Joe, we are at number 28. Discuss and give staff direction on scope of an interlocal agreement with the central Texas regional mobility authority.
>> all right. Good morning.
>> good morning.
>> as you know, some time back [inaudible] entered into an interlocal agreement with Williamson county to pay for the creation costs of the central Texas regional mobility authority. That regional mobility authority has now been created. Originally we were to split the cost 50/50 with Williamson county. We have since paid all the invoices for the creation, about $102,000. They are suggesting now that they go ahead and take care of all their costs and with $250,000 they originally authorized for that purpose, and they would not invoice us for any of the creation costs. They have since transferred the balance of their 250 to the central Texas r.m.a. So they are asking for us to do two things. Williamson county is asking for us to terminate the interlocal agreement that we have with them to share the cost of the creation of the r.m.a. They are also asking us to enter into an interlocal agreement with the central Texas r.m.a. The transfer our entire 250,000 $250,000 for the r.m.a. For its ongoing overhead costs in administering the r.m.a. The law says that the two counties who asked for the creation of the r.m.a. Are responsible now for the assistive costs of the r.m.a. -- administrative costs for the r.m.a. An interlocal agreement which set up a relationship with the r.m.a. The $250,000 that we have were to capital metro, and so we have that money still available for this purpose. There are several questions that need to be asked in structuring an agreement with the central Texas r.m.a. Foremost is is Travis County prepared to fund the administrative cost of the r.m.a. Not just for $250,000, but any additional cost that would come about once the 250 has been expended. That's one question. Because there will be most likely ongoing expenses for this purpose. Number 2 is whether terms and conditions, -- what terms and conditions, if any, would you want to have in your interlocal agreement with the central Texas r.m.a. This is your opportunity to basically define the relationship that you have with the r.m.a. So if there's anything you wanted to make clear in your dealings with the r.m.a., This is probably the time to do it. Now, in the backup you have an interlocal agreement that was created by the central Texas -- by the Williamson county Commissioners court. It can be that simple. And yet it's straightforward, and the $250,000 ensures [inaudible] terms and conditions. Or if you [inaudible] any other terms or conditions you may want to attach in the expenditure of the money [inaudible] that relationship. You have a meeting before the Texas legislature a fairly comprehensive bill that would choose the landscape of the authority of a regional mobility authority. Including several authorities that will impact Travis County's existing authorities. Specifically, as an example, in the authority of the r.m.a. Could cut off county roads from access to a project created by the regional mobility authority. You would have that authority right now. It's being taken away from you by the authority pending before the legislature. If you want that authority back, you may want to ask for it back in this interlocal agreement. That's the type of thing that you will need to ask for if you want it.
>> what authority -- what authority you were describing?
>> you currently have authority over county roads in Travis County. Under the new legislation, the central Texas r.m.a. Can cut off access by county roads to each other, quite frankly, if an r.m.a. Toll project comes through and cuts off -- if it -- basically cuts a county road in half. They can basically put off authority from one side of the county to another that you currently have by virtue of a county road, you know, being in the area. The central Texas r.m.a. Would have preemptive authority to cut off the county roads and to cut off access to a toll project established by the central Texas r.m.a. Which [indiscernible] railroad ties.
>> I thought we had language in the bill that fixed that problem.
>> that's a question whether you do or not.
>> so we can't get that authority back any other way except by contracting with the central Texas to get that authority back?
>> I知 saying that's another way of doing it.
>> okay. But there's no other way?
>> unless the authority under the r.m.a. Which is being debated right now in the Texas legislature under the bill, unless that has been changed to maintain county authority in this area, you will lose that authority.
>> okay.
>> I think the only logical thing for us to do is to not act on -- or we're not being asked to act on this today, but really what I think we need to do is to get legislation over with so that we know exactly what is in the r.m.a. Bill. That number 1. Number 2, I have been uncomfortable all along with regards to how the r.m.a. Was conducting their business. I mean, I can go back probably, you know, six, eight, ten weeks and I know that I was asking about seeing invoices for the r.m.a. That were coming through basically Williamson county. I think Williamson county is comfortable -- I mean they should be. Karen Sonleitner, Commissioner Sonleitner has made sure that we secure the $250,000 from cap metro, so I don't think that is an issue. Joe, you know, got me to feel much more comfortable with regards to maybe what we should do is, you know, sever the interlocal that we have now and kind of ramp that up again. I am now trying to set up a meeting with bob tesh, the chairman of the r.m.a., So he can sit down with joe, myself and whoever else wants to sit down in that, but there are some questions and some issues here that should make us all nervous. I mean, I think -- I知 supportive of the design to have what the r.m.a.s are supposed to do. I think we all knew going into this it was going to be a mechanism where we could expedite building the needed road system we have in this community or lamb of. So I don't go back on that, but there are things like joe said with regards to perhaps severing some of our roads, and we don't know. You know, there are so many things that are part of the r.m.a. At this stage that I would think that, you know, within two to three weeks we're going to know what exactly is in that. So I知 working with joe and going to sit down with chairman/Commissioner tesh to make sure he is understanding of at least some of the things that we think we know about the r.m.a. That we're going to have him explain to us.
>> well, i'll join you in that meeting. I would like to learn a little more about this.
>> I felt the same way up until last night when I had a chance to chat with chairman tesh. Did I send you that e-mail?
>> yes.
>> whose perspective is that that our r.m.a. Really has been working with Travis County, Williamson county and the governor's office, and he believes that the r.m.a. Is obligated to those three entities. And secondly, they are basically on a roll on two projects. 183-a and 45 southeast. And he believes that there is some advaage in the local r.m.a. Continuing to work in that direction. And in my view, no matter what's in the legislation, it will take some time for people to understand what it is and for that to get up and work. And I cannot believe that the state officials, if they see we are making progress locally, won't back off of ours and focus on other stuff in other parts of the state. They did bless these two projects before we formed the r.m.a. And basically assisted as much as they could. So I think we ought to terminate the contract with Williamson county as they request and it makes all the sense in the world. Two, that we ought to give directions to staff to put together a kind of simple interlocal agreement. It will take some time to do that anyway. I知 meeting with chairman tesh Wednesday evening. What I will suggest is if you all want to meet with him maybe that meeting before next Tuesday. The other thing is we have a work session scheduled for next Thursday. I think one of our appointees has been asking me for a work session, and I have been saying probably the best thing to do is wait until after the session because we're all inundated with bills and ripping and running here and there and it's kind of a crazy time. But I知 kind of convinced that if we got our r.m.a. Really moving for us on those two projects, then even if we just get them done before the other -- before the new law is implemented, then there's some advantage in doing that. Now, if we are stalling, it's a different matter. But it does seem to me and he convinced me that they really are moving in meeting with him. I think it leaves me with the same impression. So I don't know that in our interlocal, you know, we did commit this money to meet basically administrative expenses, and I think we ought to do that. The only difference is that I think we probably ought to see a rough budget, and I think we probably owe that to our taxpayers and we ought to see how the money is being spent. I think that the Williamson county contract, though general, does have some terms and conditions. They do a pretty good job of language of limiting their liability this time to $250,000. They seem to make clear thr not committing after this, but the understanding is, I think, if the r.m.a. Is moving in the right direction and has to keep fuptioning, if you run out of administrative money, then either we have future funding or we don't. They were trying to get state money. Is that administrative money? Yeah. So at some point we'll have to look at that. But I think all things considered, there is some advantage in us moving on down the road.
>> I think so too.
>> on our r.m.a.
>> uh-huh.
>> now, the other thing, in my view, I don't know -- based on where we are, I think a simple contract would get it done. And I think at some point we need to twawk the r.m.a. About what they think future administrative costs are, how they plan to cover them, what they expect from Travis County , and the other thing we need to know how far down the road the $250,000 will get us. And so I guess what I知 saying is I think we ought to try to get those meetings done. And what I can do is suggest to the chairman that the sooner the better.
>> oh, yeah.
>> two of us can meet with him, but three cannot.
>> I don't need to and [inaudible].
>> Wednesday evening.
>> I知 assuming [indiscernible] like a dinner. Let me suggest that then. I don't know that we're saying anything a whole lot different except that if they don't have other sources for administrative funds, then it seems to me that Williamson county and travis have to decide whether we will foot those or not. And in my view, a whole lot depends on how much progress we are making towards those two projects that we said we wanted to be prioritized.
>> yeah, I would like to see that project -- you know, all of us carry through with that project. And I know capital metro will be real concerned about how that money is used.
>> the other thing is that I told him, you know, the bill is being tweaked. We don't know what will be in it, but we do know about the Williamson county, Travis County r.m.a. We know what they have done to date in most part. And to the extent that we're uninformed, they really have been trying to get before us. What they are saying too is they may need an hour to an hour and a half on Wednesday, whenever the work session is, so if we do April 29th, we need to try to commit to give them as much time as they need to make the presentation. -- proceed with the termination agreement with Williamson county. I think we need to have these meetings, maybe the work session before we approve it. And I think joe set forth the issues here. I guess what I知 saying too is that since ours is moving, if we think it's moving in the direction that we want it to, hen we would make the state new law and at some point we would have to try to figure out what's in it and reconcile with what we're doing. My guess is we could ask some of the state officials here's what we're doing, do you see it clashing with the new law. But they have their different points, but that's what they are doing. So I can't see them putting up a whole lot of opposition.
>> well, I think that if we just leave ourself some wiggle room, if you will, to make sure that we get the things that we need to -- that we need to get. I mean, I certainly was not of the impression, you know, when we did the r.m.a. That you might have an ongoing ticket with these administrative costs. I mean, I知 a little surprised that there's not some mechanism there that, I mean, if you are operating this tent at this time, that it's not -- entity, that it's not coming out of our general fund. I think it's only right of us to ask for a fairly detailed guestimation as to what they are going to spend the $250,000 on and how far that's going to get us. But I think you will have those things answered ann after you and Commissioner Gomez meet with mr. Tesh.
>> i'll suggest that meeting and i'll also suggest a work session on may 29th. It may be what we need to do is come up with a few questions we would like for them to address during the may 29th work session session. That we need to see a budget of some sort. The main question that I知 hearing would be basically ongoing administrative expenses, how they would be met. Maybe we can brainstorm a way to get them covered other than travis and Williamson county general funds. In whole or part.
>> okay.
>> so while we're working on the interlocal, you know, I would look at the Williamson county interlocal and I think that the good provisions where they kind of say this covers basically the $250,000, they indicate what they have paid, what's left. They generally say it's supposed to carry out the purposes of the authority, the money will be spent consistently with the purpose and mission of the authority, which is good language. The other thing is that they don't really bind themselves financially beyond the $250,000 in this contract. We would have said it differently, but I have in mind, I think we ought to have just a general contract but that incorporates a budget, and to the extent that we can limit it generally, then do that. I have kind of bought into the idea that if our interlocal -- if our local r.m.a. Is headed down the road on these two projects, we ought to keep them heading in that direction.
>> just so they do it.
>> is this the meeting that you think that joe should try to be -- I mean, I was going to try to set up with a meeting with Commissioner tesh, but do we -- joe, would that be appropriate for him to be in the meeting with you all?
>> no.
>> or you want a separate --.
>> Commissioner Gomez and I probably ought to be the only --
>> then i'll follow through and set up a meeting.
>> joe has graduations to attend, plus somebody has to pay for the luncheon. With joe there, his generosity, [indiscernible]. I think that the two of us would be more appropriate at this time.
>> and i'll get that meeting set up, joe.
>> I move that we terminate the contract with Williamson county as they requested.
>> second.
>> any more discussion of that one? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. And on the other one, I move that we direct staff to start working on an interlocal, but not to finish that one until after we have had our discussions in the work session. Our target would be two weeks from today. That will give us an opportunity, I think, to consider all issues, have our conversations and the work session and have all concerns addressed.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote also. And if it's all right with the court, what I will do is communicate this discussion with chairman tesh today or tomorrow depending on what time we get out today.
>> that's fine.
Last Modified: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 3:52 PM