Travis County Commssioners Court
September 2, 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 10
10. Consider and take appropriate action on request for Texas colorado river floodplain coalition membership and fees.
>> judge, [papers shuffling - audio interference] just make sure that we would not pay what we didn't have to. Okay?
>> I guess my only question was whether we had an opportunity to touch base with the coalition folk, I guess lcra, on this?
>> the coalition is separate from the lcra. The lcra helps support the coalition.
>> okay.
>> where did that letter come from that we got?
>> the letter came from the treasurer of the coalition, bob northington.
>> okay. I read that letter and also our response. Have we talked with them since we reviewed their letter and looked at the options? How big of a deal is it for them to get I guess going back to '01?
>> I would think that they would like for us to pay from '01, that's why we posed the question here. We never received the initial bills, we just got them this past -- this fiscal year. And that's why we brought the question here. Stacy can tell you what benefits we get from the coalition, being a member of the coalition, but we did not receive the bills and therefore we didn't pay them. So that's the question, do you want to pay the [indiscernible], I think they would like for everybody to pay the past. I think there was history that some other entities asked that that be waived.
>> okay.
>> if we hadn't received a bill we would have paid?
>> we would have brought it back to court because initially we never had a fee, when we joined the coalition there was not a fee associated with the membership. So that's part of why we are here to do two things. Change the agreement which includes the fee, which was not included when the coalition was first formed.
>> so we are saying basically when we joined there was no fee.
>> for fee.
>> a fee was later adopted, not called to our attention, I assume, and we didn't know about it and we didn't get a bill.
>> that's correct.
>> this is the first year that we've got the bill?
>> that's correct.
>> I think we ought to find out how big of a deal it is for them.
>> I thought that's what we were doing.
>> seems to me that we would say exactly what I have just said. Look, we have been a member of the coalition since day one, initially there was not a fee. Now we learn there has been a fee in place the last three years, nobody told us, nobody billed us. And you've been doing without it, how important is it? We are ready to pay for '03 although it did come late in the year and it looks like '04 is due January '04. So our position is we will gladly pay you for '03 which is --
>> we could say that, judge.
>> and we are getting ready for the January '04 payment, but we think you outing the waive the others. If they are considering doing that for the other entities my guess is just to get this behind them it may make all of the sense in the world.
>> we can do that, judge.
>> for this year what's the source of funding?
>> we have transferred funds from our miscellaneous lien item to pay for it. We have done the same thing for '04.
>> okay.
>> that's what I would say. The Commissioners court wants to be cooperative.
>> we would have to bring that before the coalition's executive committee, in their October meeting. They would have to vote on our variance for fees. They have been granting variances for fy '03's fees. They will grant a reduction of $250 based on written request. The previous fees we are going to have to go get a special exception to.
>> I think what I would do is take the payment for '03 and say the Commissioners courted basically voted to approve the '03. The first time we got the invoice, we know there's a payment, some payment for '04, we will be ready to meet that in January, but we think that you ought to waive the previous one sthoos that's fine.
>> that's the motion.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? I wouldn't fall out with them over it, though. Based on the backup, this is a good deal. We are appropriately collaborating with the others on these floodplain issues, we have gotten benefit to date.
>> that's correct.
>> I would like to tell you, that we found out about this in such a backwards way, judge, from getting an e-mail from a coalition members out at Lakeway, saying why -- well, gee, no one bothered to tell us you changed it. There's an interlocal that lays out what our responsibilities are. It caught us just as much off guard as anybody else.
>> speaking of that, that's attached for now around you are approving that interlocal as well.
>> that's the motion.
>> okay.
>> tell them that our reputation for paying late used to be good but is no longer true. Any more discussion? Motion to approve the interlocal plus payment for '03 and a commitment to pay January '04 for the next one. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much. Number 11 is on consent.
>> before t.n.r. Goes out the door, thank you very much because we are now seeing a lot of things come through that has to do with the a.d.a., I'm very pleased that the things that are coming through here now that we are accepting are absolutely related to our a.d.a. Requirements and I appreciate the fact that you are bringing that to our attention.
>> okay.
Last Modified: Wednesday, September 3, 2003 7:52 AM