Travis County Commssioners Court
December 16, 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 18
Now, numbers 18, joe, is considered comments on Texas dot's proposed rma rules and take appropriate action.
>> there are a couple of changes to the rules that we thought the court should be aware of. Unfortunately the comment period ended yesterday. I'm confident that it was still -- it would still ape any comments that the court has with regards to the proposed administrative rules by texdot on rma's. With me is elaine ray.
>> hello, my name is elaine ray, good morning.
>> good morning.
>> good morning, elaine.
>> there are two issues I'm going to bring to you. One of the issues is adding counties to the r.m.a. Right now the way the rules are currently proposed, if a county wants to become part of the r.m.a., That county doesn't need to ask the Commissioners court from which the original r.m.a. Was formed. Which is y'all and Williamson county. So right now as the rules are written, they won't be required to ask -- come back here to -- to a county that wants to join the r.m.a. It doesn't have to return back here to get any permission from y'all. All that they have to do is go -- what they have to do is go to the r.m.a. And ask and also the transportation commission has to approve that. So we wanted to make you aware of that. We were suggesting that -- that they should come back to you all to -- to let you know that they would -- or come to you, a new county, would come to you all and say we would like permission to join the r.m.a.
>> so in your case Williamson county and Travis County would have to agree.
>> that seems to be consistent with how these things were formed to begin with. It wasn't just the originating counties had to agree, the courts saying we want to move forward. It seems that that would be consistent whether upper part of the r.m.a. From day 1 or part of the r.m.a. Want to be part of the r.m.a. Five years in. It ought to go back.
>> move that we add subsection 5 to [indiscernible], as recommended by staff. Any discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Next.
>> I have written a letter, a draft letter that has that in there, so for either the judge's signature or for you all to sign.
>> I wasn't suggest thank we stop there. I was just -- I don't know how we are going to shake out on the rest of it. The next one is the issue of converting and transferring texdot facilities to the r.m.a. This relates to three roads actually turning -- free roads actually turning into toll road. As you are probably away very soon, the texdot district office will come out with a list of possible toll roads or actually a list of r.m.a. Projects and some of them will be transfers. Existing roads that will become toll roads. And we wanted to make you aair that as the rules are written now, when a free facility is transferred to the r.m.a., And becomes a toll facility, it will no longer require the approval of the county and the city. Right now the way the existing rules are, as adopted by texdot previously, have those two provisions in them. But they are trying to make the rules conform to 3588 and two of the things that are added to the -- to the law itself, is -- is for the commission and the r.m.a. To -- to -- okay wait first is the public hearings and transportation commission and the r.m.a. Would approve the transfer, it does take a lot of public involvement out of the process. Also the city and county right now in the rules are required to approve a transfer as they are written right now. This would take the city and county out of the loop in terms of approving that transfer. Two-edged sword. These are likely to be controversial conversions, as you can see already on 183, when there was a proposal that that be converted, so one of these basically says you don't have to face in a controversy when the day comes. The other says no you want to be there representing your constituents if such a proposal is proposed. So it's -- this is truly a -- a jump ball. It could go either way with this one.
>> we have the language that's determined by the commission. Why don't we just take that item. Each affected county and city supports the conversion.
>> that would be the existing law, that's not the way the proposed rules are being drafted. It would require us to make a comment to the commission to say leave the rules the way they are. We want to be involved when a decision is being made to --
>> when you say the existing law, joe, are you talking about the law before 3588 or are you talking 3588?
>> 3588 does not require the city and county be involved. The rules do right now.
>> so we are talking about the originating language related to the r.m.a.?
>> yes. The originating language that's in the existing rules. Now, 3588 itself does not require city and county --
>> why don't we say here retain the language in the current rules, that provide that the commission has determined that the governing body of each affected county and city supports the merger. It's easy to determine what the effected -- what the affected counties and cities are. It would be whether a road is -- [multiple voices] that makes sense to me. We are saying keep the current road, right, especially the language that says this.
>> seems like there had to have been some kind of thought process that went into the original rule that said, you know, that's a good idea, I'm not persuaded that changing the rule is in the interest of public involvement and public process. There's a reason they put it in there to begin with.
>> my concerns is basically in that level. But let me ask this question. Is there any model, per se, in the state or in the cup or whatever where a road was converted to a toll road. In other words paved road, free road, whatever you want to call it, paid road, it was converted to toll, is there a model anywhere whereby you could really see an impact, I'm saying this basically because of cut-through traffic, going through naibldz, that would be an issue. I think in all of our precincts. Would be cut through through traffic through existing neighborhoods whereby people may be hoping to avoid a toll. An alternative route. Is that something that we have any idea of how people may have handled it, or looked at that, in any conversion of a -- of a road? Transition?
>> I don't know offhand. We can essential check the transportation research.
>> I would like to know that.
>> the websites to see if any such research has been done. I don't know of any research reports that delve into that issue. But we can certainly find out.
>> with that change to number 1, move approval that we include a proposal in one and the language as provided by staff in two, that being the commission determines that there is sufficient public support for the conversion, right?
>> right. But that's already in the existing --
>> already in the existing.
>> [multiple voices]
>> retain. [multiple voices]
>> second that, judge. Second that.
>> okay. Any more discussion? Put in parentheses, if it ain't broken don't fix it. Commissioner Sonleitner? And me. All in favor?
>> one quick thing, I'm sorry. You have in your memo under number 4 the r.m.a. Agrees to assume all liability and responsibility for epic. I don't know what that means.
>> it stand for environmental permits issues and commitments.
>> okay. That was like a fonzie, got it.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Is that it?
>> that's it, thank.
>> move that we make those changes, have the entire Commissioners court sign it and that we send a copy of that to Williamson county and the r.m.a. Board and request that they support us in these --
>> they are meeting --
>> that's a motion, too.
>> they are meeting tomorrow morning. So we need for make sure, that is an item on their agenda about the rules. We need to make sure that they have that before them tomorrow morning.
>> is there a second.
>> I seconded that already, judge.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Tuesday, December 17, 2003 6:46 AM