Travis County Commssioners Court
June 3, 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
Mrs. Cassidy, let's go to 28 right quick. 28. Receive status report from the central Texas regional mobility authority board, discuss related issues, and take appropriate action on the following: a. Interlocal agreement; b. Transfer of funds to cover expenses; c. Resolution in support of the authority's management of state highway 45-se; and. D. Actions necessary to carry out rma mission. Tom, did you circulate that letter to the texdot commission to everybody?
>> yes, I did. By e-mail.
>> did everybody get a chance to look at it? Texdot saying basically Travis County still stands behind the central regional mobility authority, we believe that it would manage 45 southeast for us? Any objections or questions about it.
>> no. Just make sure -- [multiple voices]
>> who -- circulated by discussion by Commissioners court.
>> although the other two are not here, I believe it contains what we in the last voting session sid the letters did contain, we authorize [indiscernible] before we direct it to the -- [multiple voices]
>> wanted to be on that. Move approval.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. There was a motion and second, right?
>> yes.
>> did we -- should we cover the interlocal agreement yet?
>> yes.
>> have we seen it?
>> I circulated it by e-mail, also, late yesterday. If you don't have copies, I have got copies for you.
>> I do not have copies. I left at 6:30 yesterday.
>> I sent this at 7:00. [laughter]
>> I would put you in a for a big promotion, but that would probably harm you more than it would help you with the new county attorney. All right.
>> bryan cassidy and I were working on this way all the way up until late yesterday. I think but for that fact, the -- the r.m.a. Would have already signed, I think bryan talked with chairman tesch I think they are agreeable to this language. I think this language captures what the court articulated they wanted to do at last week's meeting. It's in legislative format and the underlining is language the r.m.a. Wanted added, what's stricken through is what they would change from the last draft. I submitted them, just the high points, it does call for the immediate transfer of the $250,000, the r.m.a. Will submit its budget for how it's going to spend that money, within 06 days, on the state -- within 60 days. On the state highway 45 southeast language, I think the language that we originally proposed was a little bit too tight for the r.m.a.'s comfort. What we have settled on is that the r.m.a. Will use its best efforts to pursue an agreement with the state that s.h. 45 southeast will be an r.m.a. Project, but obviously they don't want to be held to the fact that that's ultimately a state decision that they don't control. So I think the resolution here was to use the best efforts, which means as long as the r.m.a. Is trying their best to make that a ctrma project, then they are using the money as we want them to use it.
>> what page is that on, tom?
>> that is the second page.
>> in the middle there.
>> 21 a. Under transfer of unencumbered funds, little a.
>> okay.
>> then the other major change was since capital metro agreed to advance the $250,000 in a lump sum, we took out the language on monthly reimbursements and the like. It became a moot point.
>> do we give any accounting.
>> well, you are getting a budget within 60 days, then after that we get quarterly reports.
>> okay. Quarterly, okay.
>> I'm looking at s.h. 45 southeast now. Page 2.
>> actions transfer unearn cumbered funds a, authorities for use funds transfer under this agreement only to improve the system of roadways in central Texas by studying planning and developing projects in a manner consistent with the partition to form the ctrma, the work of the authority shall include using best efforts to pursue an agreement to jointly develop or otherwise cooperate.
>> this is not new language there's been there.
>> well, this language shows the difference between what I sent them after last week's meeting. I put this in after last week's meeting. The best efforts language.
>> what did you underline? What's underlined here?
>> after -- after I sent the revised draft to the r.m.a. Last week, the underlining is what they responded.
>> okay.
>> you wouldn't underline that, you would underline the response to the new stuff.
>> correct.
>> now I see.
>> otherwise you think it's consistent with the course of discussion last Thursday?
>> yes, sir.
>> questions, comments? We don't want the signature page to stand alone on the last page, do we? What would keep us from starting it after 6 on the next to the last page.
>> something in the computer wouldn't let me do that. I can go back and try again. We can just retype the signature page, I can fix that, judge.
>> I think when you take the red lining out that may change the page.
>> my early lawyer days, you didn't need that much space. Some innocent person may be --
>> you are inviting mischief.
>> absolutely.
>> questions, discussion?
>> I guarantee -- I had a couple of questions. Tom, I guess during the discussion that we had with the ct r.m.a. Folks over the last work session, I know it was bad in here as far as best effort as far as s.h. 45 southeast that's being looked at, is there any way after leaving -- as to what Travis County can do to ensure that that becomes a reality, because, again, I'm not -- I'm not too comfortable as far as the status of this -- of this s.h. 45 southeast will be the cash cow of all of the total generated funds in this area, there's no doubt about it. Getting traffic off of i-35 and that area, so I'm just trying to see if there's any other avenue available to the county but more [indiscernible] substance to ensure that s.h. 45 southeast becomes a reality, just as shhh 40 owe just as 183 a is. And I'm just trying to figure out what other avenue is made available to us to make that happen?
>> well, I think that you have to continue making the appeals and making the approaches to the Texas transportation commission on that issue. As you remember, when we filed the petition, we basically wanted them to say the first project would be 183 a and the second would be 45 southeast. But the transportation commission declined to do that and they -- legally, that's not going to become an r.m.a. Project unless the transportation commission decides that it's going to be. So it's their decision at this point and I think in terms of other things that you can do, I mean, obviously the r.m.a. Is going to be making that pitch to the state and I think Travis County has to do things like sending a letter you just approved. And using all of the -- all of the usual avenues to make an appeal to the transportation commission to make a certain decision on a certain row. It might be something when the Travis County delegation makes its regular presentation before the transportation commission on -- on state funding for roads in central Texas. You may want to include with that. An ongoing request that -- that the transportation commission sort of hand over 45 southeast to the r.m.a. Let's not a funding decision per se, but it's a transportation commission decision just like it is on the -- spending state highway fund money in Travis County. If it's one of the priorities for -- for Travis County folks, you can make that part of your presentation of -- to the commission. The r.m.a. Board members, particularly -- the r.m.a. Board in total is as motivated as you are to see s.h. 45 southeast become an r.m.a. Project. If you are concerned about the best efforts standard being met, I think that you are going to get regular reports back to this court from -- from the Travis County appointees to the board and probably chairman tesch will come and talk to you any time that you like. Hopefully that will give you the assurance you need and you will be able to keep a close eye on it, I think we are working hand in hand on that. Your passage of the authorization the letter to texdot today, I know that's something that the board appreciates and that helps the process.
>> [indiscernible] a bypass, s.h. 130, which would connect with s.h. 45 east, connect with that, we talk about getting traffic congestion off of i-35 and bypassing the -- this portion of the city of Austin, stuff like that. Without a leg connector as far as s.h. 45 southeast it doesn't make any sense for us not to pursue it. But again I don't know.
>> not only does that my sense, they are obligated under their bond covenants to build state highway 45 southeast. It's not a question of whether it will be built, the only question is who is going to build.
>> and who is going [multiple voices]
>> receive the toll. That's the -- that's the biggest question that you have got to go that you have got to be asking. I mean, if you -- if you have the commission that's sitting there and, yes, southeast, 45 southeast is going to be built, but if it's not going to be built with r.m.a., Which means that the r.m.a. Would receive the toll dollars that we could use in this area which is what we want, there's not a question that it's going to be bui. It's not going to be s.h. 130 unless --
>> that was really, that's a good point Commissioner, we -- [indiscernible] regional mobility authority, regional toll authority, or anything else. If you cannot collect and generate a revenue from the tolls and use them in this area. Of course that's been in the -- been the premise of this thing starting from the beginning. The point is I don't know how that's going to go as far as those decisions and whether that might be used in other areas of the state or if it will stay here locally, which is a real big question. I don't think the law precludes them not to send that money out of the region. Is that true?
>> that's true.
>> I almost called you Commissioner. But you'll do. [one moment please for change in captioners] .
>> there's a number of options we can look a to keep tonight the region, but I think Commissioner Daugherty is right, that's always out there.
>> judge, I move.
>> second.
>> Commissioner Daugherty moves we approve the interlocal. Any more discussion? That passes by unanimous vote. Move we expedite the transfer of the 250,000 to the authority.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor say aye? That passes by unanimous vote. Anything under 26 d?
>> does that mean I just voted for capital metro to give $250,000 to somebody?
>> that's right.
>> they give it to Travis County.
>> first.
>> thank you very much.
Last Modified: Wednesday, June 4, 2003 9:52 AM