Travis County Commssioners Court
October 28, 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 30
Number 30 is to discuss and give appropriate directions on proposal for chapter 30, Travis County code, joint Travis County/city of Austin subdivision code for extraterritorial jurisdiction. Anything today? We do have a schedule for that.
>> that's correct. This is still going through city boards and commissions. The city council will consider it. So I think at that point they will gather up all the comments and respond at one time. I'm not sure there's any action that the court needs to take today.
>> okay.
>> can we get from the stakeholders a written list of recommendations as they mentioned this morning? We need this item back on for a final discussion?
>> I think that would be a good idea, yeah.
>> okay.
>> judge, can I get a clarification? Because we had on the original timetable two possible work session days, one was going to be one and one was going to be an alternate. I put holds on both of those dated daits. Do we have clarity on whether one is going to do it or do we need to set aside both days on our calendar? I'm holding Thursday November 6 and I'm holding Thursday November 13th until I get indication that it's really one or both days.
>> that depend on what issues are still outstanding.
>> keep it on hold?
>> I haven't heard anything yet that would cause us to have two work sessions, but I haven't seen written comments.
>> they will have the written comments in a couple of days, won't they? [ inaudible ]
>> let's hold those two days.
>> I think it ought to be clear real soon. It may be to our advantage to go ahead and plan where we think we ought to be. And let the city know that. I do think we ought to put on the court's agenda next week a sort of follow-up discussion of this outside audit. And the more I i think about it, we are probably duty bond to get it done. And history tells me that if we come up with something that the city disagrees with, we're going to get their cooperation, they come up with something we disagree with, they'll have ours. And we have budgeted some money. I had a chat with the auditor and my request basically was for her to help us determine how much we could get done with the money we have budgeted. Let have this on the agenda next week. I haven't gotten any official word from the mayor or city council. At some point I think the Commissioners court should communicate directly with them about the why's and what we would like to do and what the cost is or the costs are. And basically let them do what they think they have to.
>> judge, do you think we need to do that prior to their meeting on November the 6th?
>> the reason I do is if we plan to get this done this year, there's kind of downtime between December 20th and January 3 January 3rd. And with an outside audit firm you really want to go ahead and get on your schedule if you think you will need them. I have no idea how much time it could take, but I do know it could get to be really tedious work because you're really looking at what people will be doing. How much time will it take them what a reasonable fee is if there's a fee for service for us as well as fee for service for the city. I think that the last thing we want is the legislature to come back to town in a year and a half and we spend time over there talking about why we didn't eliminate duplication fees. I don't think we'd win.
>> judge, if we get a letter from the city manager futrell, because when we went to the riek ca luncheon, when was that, a week ago, two weeks ago, we did get the letter, we did ask the question to the city manager directly are they going to participate in the independent audit. And the city manager made it extraordinarily clear no, they don't have the money to participate, certainly they don't have $100,000. What they were offering as a substitute was their in-house audit team over there. And unfortunately, I think that is something that stakeholders have been speaking quite loudly about is the idea of an independent audit. Because if they come back and say everything is just peachy cool, it's fine, no one will believe us if it's coming from the mouths of internal staff. So we're still sitting here with $100,000 saying we're ready to do our piece, but I think we understand that 100,000 won't do their pease. And they're sitting there saying that their way to comply with what's in the interlocal is they will use internal staff. And that's problematic. I don't think that's going to get us what independence. We need an outside person to say what it is.
>> more reason for us to proceed then.
>> we need it to be the most independent entity in the world, but if I were a home builder, I don't know if i'd take the county's word that these are reasonable and not duplicative of city fees. So a lot depends on how we end up working that one shop also. But anyway, i'll have this item back on and another separate item for the audit.
>> yes, sir.
>> judge, I think it's going to be real important for joe to start laying out some real explanation for the court with regards to what really might happen if we do have to go to arbitration/mediation. Joe, in our meeting two weeks ago, we were talking about here's what happens to you if you don't do this versus if you do this, but I think if we need that laid out before the court, because I will tell you I am not -- I'm not very optimistic looking at what we see happen with this thing or continue to happen, which is the stakeholders come to us and say, do you know what, this thing really isn't working for us. That doesn't mean that we're not going to come down somewhere where we have to decide that we are willing to do something, but let's face it, 1445 and 1204 was specifically done for -- for the satisfaction of the building industry. And if we've got these folks that continue to come to us and say, you know, there are issues in here that this is really not beneficial to us, then I think we need to listen loud and clearly. And I would -- at some point in time -- because January 1 is the date that we have to have this thing done by. After that time then we are, I guess, tom -- is that when we are relegated to go to mediation?
>> the law is that the city and the county have to certify before January first that they're in compliance with the law. So if you don't have both entities issuing that certification, it basically says you have to go to arbitration. So we've got this schedule for adoption on the joint code, but what's implied in that, but not expressly stated, is that one of these meetings for the Commissioners court and the city council, each will have to issue that certification. And if both don't issue that certification, arbitration is automatic.
>> well, I would like for us to know -- and have joe really articulate for us, here is -- here is what happens if we can't get there. And it was pretty obvious to me with rick and hank this morning that there are -- there continue to be major gaps here with regards to their comfort level. And I for one am certainly not going to be comfortable if we can't get these guys that have basically been the responsibility parties who are going to make sure that we get this accomplished. And I -- I don't want to see January 1 get up on us before we really have joe say, you know, guys, here's what the deal really is here and here's what's going to happen to you if this doesn't happen.
>> but that's not -- to follow up on that. The arbitration -- (indiscernible). We were talking about January 1. The others I think have been a little extension of time.
>> the city of Austin is the only entity we have to deal with between now and '04. The other cities we have until January '06.
>> okay. So to make it real clear, I don't el nino to think it's -- anyone to think it's all the entities in Travis County. That's not true.
>> anything further on this item today? We'll have it back on next week.
>> I'm sorry, I still don't have clarity. Do we at least know whether we are or are not going to have a work session next Thursday?
>> Commissioner owe.
>> I had not planned to post one. [overlapping speakers].
>> that would be my guess.
>> am I right on that? I don't know that we have enough to work on next Thursday.
>> also, the city council is taking up that day. I don't know how much good it is for you both to be deliberating at the same time.
>> let's plan it for the week after.
>> the 13th.
>> so we can free up time.
Last Modified: Wednesday, October 28, 2003 7:52 AM