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 19
I guess since we have the city of Austin representatives here, maybe we ought to take up item number 19. Consider and take appropriate action on the following: a, proposal for chapter 30, Travis County code, joint Travis County/city of Austin subdivision code for extraterritorial jurisdiction jurisdiction, and 19 b, contract for professional services for a management audit of the single office for Travis County/austin subdivision review with deloitte & touche. Let's call up number 16 also. Consider amendment number 2 to the interlocal agreement between city of Austin and Travis County regarding subdivision platting in the extraterritorial jurisdiction and take apopriate action.
>> we killed a few trees since last night.
>> it's actually about the same size as it was last week. I think this is just single sided. We did have an opportunity to meet with the stakeholders and least air the steps of recommendation discussed with the stakeholders. The variations. And try to come to some perhaps final [inaudible]. I think it is safe to say it's probably not what the stakeholders wanted, but they are agreeable in part because we're intent to make this work. And I say that on the part of the city and the county both. We have put additional provisions in the code and also in interlocal agreement that will require a single determination. As I said last week, it doesn't go as far as the stakeholders wanted. As a compromise, we suggested that we do two things. First we set up a review board that would include the stakeholders, the city and the county. And then we continue to meet monthly to see just how well the single office is performing. So we're open. I mean, this is a new concept. Haven't suggested that we've ironed out outline the operational issues. A lot of what we see as being the conflict have to do with operations and management of a single office. Lisa and I are both intent on making sure that those management operations take place at all levels. And that if they do not take place and there remains to be conflict, that she and I will resolve them and make sure there are single determinations made. I suspect that it won't take too long before resolutions are being made at a much lower level than lisa and i. But if that's not the case, we expect to be able to know that sooner than later. And also be able to continue our dialogue with the stakeholders at monthly meetings, and then within six months come back both to the city council and to the Commissioners court with any further amendments to the process, to the code or to the interlocal that may be appropriate. So we leave ourselves in an ongoing process with the stakeholders, with the intent of making this thing single office work. And I believe that gets us to the point where we can have something adopted by January 1st, which we believe will satisfy the intent, at least the letter, and we believe also the intent of the law. And to give it some time to work and move on. We've spent two years discussing, revising, I believe we are truly better off now than we were two years ago. And we continue to move in the right direction. So I believe at this point the city council has done a third and final reading of the code. I'm not here to speak for the city, but I believe that's the case.
>> that's correct. Thursday we had the final reading of the city-county code, and then we also had the amendments to the interlocal agreement and negotiate and scoot by the city manager's office to make sure those amendments could be done.
>> I'm sorry. There's some noise outside. Can you -- you mentioned the interlocal agreement.
>> the amendment -- what we were trying to do is make sure the interlocal agreement reflects everything that we had in the single code, and we were -- knowing that we still were making changes as of the day the council was approving it to make sure we had the ability to have that authority done so it could be executed for January 1st. City council does not meet again, but the city manager's office is the one that executes contracts and agreements by charlotteer. -- charter.
>> okay. Was anything -- you mention the interlocal. You know, one big discussion that was held before, last meeting, when you all were before us, was the utilities type effort and of course the asterisk kind of depicted that you be the [indiscernible] but by removing [indiscernible] the interlocal itself suggested you the city would still have the authority to review the [indiscernible] situation to ensure that those utilities will be able to supply the necessary pressure and fire flow that I think is very critical. And of course the question at that time was the safety issue. As far as having the kind of pressure that you need, and then number 2, the cost of upgrading this if -- if this was not law, in other words, bring them up where you have the necessary infrastructure to get the pressure whereby if there is a house or something on fire, the emergency services need to get there and deal with, they would actually have adequate pressure in the tpaoeu hydrants and ensure -- which is my tphaoeupbd is a real -- mi d is a real safety issue. And, of course, I just want to ma sure that is that the trend or is that what the city has done in the past to ensure that these particular review processes continue as far as that's concerned?
>> I think the fundamental issue for the city is going into the interlocal, the city's position was to retain its existing authority that we had in the e.t.j. And so that authority of reviewing the water, wastewater plans whether with another provider is the existing authority we have and with tceq, that authority is maintained. So that's an authority we have existing. And so by the way the interlocal was written, we inadvertently or it could be interpreted that we reduced or eliminated the city's authority. And two points. One, the city wouldn't do that in a footnote if we were going limit our authority. We would have wanted to retain additional information. 2, the city cannot dell great its variance authority to a third party provider whether they are an external provider of that service or not. And three, that was just never the intent. So a lot of the discussion that we had in front of this body and subsequently at a stakeholder meeting we had went substantively to what level review that is. Fire flow is just one component, but there are other components that the utility is concerned about. The last point is it's not a house bill 1445 issue because it's not an issue of conflict between the city and the county. Because the county dozens not have this re-- does not have this review. So it's not a house bill 14455 issue. Is it an issue a the city and stakeholders have? What level we feel by we have by state law and that we've been enforcing up to this date, that's a different issue, but not a house bill 1445 issue because it's not inherent conflict between the city and county. We never come to you with conflict on either party's side. So the fire flow is just one of multiple issues regarding the review, but, you know, the most important point is it's not a house bill 1445 issue in our mind because the county doesn't regulate this issue. Secondly, we had this review before may 2003 and when we signed it we felt we still had that. So there's just an interpretation. So we're saying we would like to clarify that language and delete the asterisks.
>> i'll move to get you all's public comments on that to really flush it out the way you did because it was discussed last time and there were some conflicts, well, disagreements.
>> disagreement. I think there is -- I think it's fair to say --
>> I'm sorry. Go ahead and say --
>> I think it's fair to say the stakeholders have a different perspective, but I just wand to outline the points from the city's perspective on it.
>> did you have -- can you state your name?
>> david lloyd, assistant city attorney. I was noticing someone pointed out the sequence of items on your agenda, and I guess the amendment to the agreement is posted after approval of the joint code.
>> prior to.
>> prior to? Okay.
>> it's actually when you take on 16, joe. Go ahead and take whatever action -- [indiscernible].
>> 16 would be to amend the interlocal agreement. That would delete the asterisk. It would require single determination by the management officials, I guess. I'm not sure how the interlocal refers to them.
>> that's correct.
>> for the reasons that ms. Gordon just gave us.
>> yes.
>> there's also a third item on there related to the process review that --
>> and the case manager. Designation -- and a sunset provision. That would a basically require us to come back in six months.
>> any other discussion of the second amendme in number 16?
>> go ahead.
>> I don't know whether this goes in here or if it's the next. I'll wait if it's e next piece. But in joe's memo of December 12th, it does state that one of the outstanding issue still out there that was agreed to in the interlocal but it hasn't happened is the county staff having a connection to the city computer system. So where did we wind up on that, because without that connectn we don't have a blended office and we don't have a way to empower our county work staff to see that work product and to be able to act as though we are one. It leaves a dependence on the city staff if we have to constantly go over there and get somebody to pull something up.
>> that's probably just a technological issue and will require -- [indiscernible].
>> the city is in the process of acquiring a new inspection and develoent review system that will be accessible on the internet. Some of the programs and that should be implemented by June. So one of the issues will be timing, but in terms of that being implemented and staff having access to the existing system. Because we need -- I wouldn't want the county to spend money to hook up to the old system when we're going to have an internet accessible system and you would have security rights so you could pull down that information right from your computer screen using existing technology. So we can address it, joe and i, to get whatever connection we can in the interim, but we have by June we should have the new system in which might not require any funds to be expended to get that connection.
>> I appreciate that, but there's got to be some kind of -- even if it's a quick and dirty patch, to be able to get there because we're going to be measuring a lot of our success in this first six months. I appreciate the fact you are moving to something more friendly by June, but that's when you guys are coming back in terms of how are we doing. I think that could be something that could impede progress unless we figure out some kind of a patch. We've got some very talented i.t.s. People that could figure out how to make it work even if it's just a make-shift connection. That's got to get worked out. Joe, when you guys can figure that out, get it brought back to us because I see that very much as a missing piece that could really hamper our end of the deal, not the city's end, but our end in terms of truly being a blended 5:00 office.
>> move approval. Anybody would like to address this on number 16? Stakeholders? Stpheub in all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Now 19. Did we resolve the tech any logical issue? So 19 will be implemented when?
>> it goes into effect December 22nd.
>> [inaudible] would be implemented when? When will folks actually be gearing up?
>> it's already in motion. I mean, the single office required under the code -- the code itself I guess is what you are referring to. Everything on the -- all the other institutional arrangements that are behind the code are in motion being put in place. Chapter 30 itself, I guess it's a matter of effective date of the code, and tom's answer was --
>> when the city voted on the joint code, they chose to have it go into effect December 22. The order before you has the code basically becoming law on December 22nd. I suppose the judge's question is it's law December 22nd. Does that mean we're implementing it or is there some lag between t.n.r. Implements it in practice.
>> I think as of the 22nd, if you file an application, you would be entitled to have it processed in accordance with the joint city and county code. That would include the discretionary authority for waiver approval and everything else that's in it. But the city council just adopted it as a standard ordinance and it does become effective on the 22nd.
>> that's a good statement on the entitlement.
>> uh-huh.
>> are we saying certain county staff will be in place to actually carry out the agreement?
>> yes.
>> by the first of the year?
>> yes.
>> yes, sir.
>> let me make sure that I understand what we're trying to get accomplished. We're kind of in agreement that there are some disagreements that we have, and we're willing to go forward with this with sort of a six-month trial balloon and get stakeholders, all of us together again and say, well, how are we dealing with this, how are we -- or I mean are the stakeholders fine. Because what we're really saying, there are some things that we really are not getting to a single office situation, right? We're all admitting that. The city is admitting it, the county is admitting it. But what we're really saying is this is the best we can do right now. And stakeholders, live with us for this. In six months we're going to come back. If you are still not pleased with this deal, we know the legislature comes back in town in 2005, and that's -- because that's most likely what's going to happen. Is that really kind of where we are? Where we really know we're not doing the single office.
>> I wouldn't describe it that way. We've done a lot of work to make sure that chance, lining up our code, looking at our operations and what we recognize that even if the county continued to do their process separately from the city, issues would come up. What normally happens is if an issue comes up, it's brought to our attention and we go ahead and address it operationally. This is no different. In fact, this is more difficult because you are trying to blend two entities and make them one and make that a smooth, seamless process to the people using the system. What we've agreed to month by month as the review as real issues come up, let us address those and tal about what needs to be fixed. If after six months that means we have three nor amendments to bring before the city council and Commissioners court, then we do that. But the goal is we're working towards a resolution and towards success of the single office. I think I'm exited to that and I think -- committed to that and joe is committed to that, city staff is committed to. That we spent a lot of time trying to ma this work and I think people will acknowledge over the last two years things have improved significant will you, but there are things we need to address but we need to be proactive. So instead of waiting for the letting tphur 2005 and there's a laundry list of things people have had in degree with single office, we're saying let's bring it on, let us check the system and find out what we need to do. If we need to make an amendment in the six-month time period, let's bring them all at one time. We don't really want to continue -- we want to be working towards the goal of success in single office. And if we get feedback it helps us do that job.
>> and I guess the operative word there is that we're working towards, which means that we really aren't there. We really have not -- maybe it's not fair to ask david, it's not fair to ask tom about have we complied with 1204. I guess maybe the person we ought to ask is the attorney general. I mean is 1204, I mean have we met what 1204 was set out to get us to do? I mean I guess that would be the real question.
>> my response to that, Commissioner, is yes, the joint code and the interlocal that we have as amended does meet the requirements of 1204. But we are recognizing that there be procedural issues that we need to continue to address and we'll work with the stakeholders and through this process review, determine what fixes we need to make. We do feel that we are in compliance with the statute. There are some philosophical differences that the stakeholders have had with us and they did present that alternative approach to the entire concept. And the city staff and the county staff, I think I'm speaking for the county staff when I say that we all preferred the management concept that is embodied in the agreement and the single joint code where we work with a city and county staff together jointly on reviewing an application as it comes in and reach conclusions and make recommendations jointly. And feel that that results in fewer -- less likelihood for conflict overall. And that was the goal of 1204 and h.b. 1445 to stop the, quote, ping-ponging effect that a developer might have experienced when working between a city and a county. So I think --
>> [indiscernible] four ways to comply. Which way do we think --
>> the fourth option. Whh is the single office.
>> judge, anticipating this discussion, I printed out the relevant excerpts from the statute. I would be happy to pass those out and we can walk through it.
>> I would be happy to receive a copy.
>> > as you can see, the first piece you are going to look at is that first sentence in subsection c that says except as provided by subsections d 3 and 4, a municipality and a county may not both regulate subdivisions. And approve related permits in the e.t.j. So stated another way, the city and the county can both regulate if you do d-3 or d-4. D-3, if you look down under d, d-1, 2, 3 is where you divide exclusive jurisdiction geographically. And d-4 is the option that city of Austin and Travis County chose when we first entered into the interlocal back in April of 2002. So to say Travis County and the city of Austin are complying with the law, you have to conclude that we are meeting all the requirements of d-4. So let's just walk through those one by one. D-4, a, have you to establish one office. We've done that one. A-1, the office has to accept plat applications for tracts in the e.t.j. We're doing that. That one is complied with. 2, the one office collects municipal and county plat application fees in a lump sum amount. We're doing that one. And then a-3, providing applicants one response indicating approval or denial of the plat application. We are providing one response. Then under 4-b is your single set of consolidated and consistent regulations. With the adoption of a joint code, you will be complying with that one. So each of the discreet elements that the statute requires the city and the county to do, I would submit tower doing.
>> did the law speak to any kind of a cost of service study which is going to be coming up in terms of the 19-b piece of this or is that something we are initiating our seflsz to have a good sense as to what are the fees being charged, is it full cost of service, beyond cost of service, duplication, dual or duplication?
>> I think it's fair to say there's a difference of opinion as to whether the statute addressed cost of service or fees or anything of that nature. I think what there's not a difference of opinion on is that the city and county chose to do that in the amendment to the interlocal we signed in June of '03.
>> yeah, because I'm going show me in the law here that says we have to do a cost of service study. It doesn't, does it?
>> certainly not expressly. To reach that conclusion, you've got to read a lot into a statute.
>> we don't get to immaterial phreu anything on the county side -- imply anything on the county side.
>> the cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is you look at the plain language of the statute.
>> as to flat out say it.
>> well, you are implying that the duplicate fees are okay?
>> well --
>> .
>> or are you saying there's no clear language --
>> there's no clear language that says you shall not have duplicate fees. It does talk about collecting application fees in a lump sum amount. If you want to read something into that, I suppose, you know, you can. You would have to conclude that there's some ambiguity in that statement and in the case of ambiguity, the first thing you are supposed to do then is go look at the legislative history. And see what's in the bill analyses over at the legislature and the floor debate and so on.
>> again, we've had very good discussion in this room and even acknowledgment by the stakeholders that you might have dual review that is duplicative, but it does not mean it is synonymous. Duel does not necessarily mean duplicative. That's why the issue related to access to the computer is a very important one. So it does not become did you happen milk teu but alows each toss the dual review necessary for each piece so it all comes together.
>> with that, though, I guess, tom, how would this impact, I guess the [inaudible] because some of that is looking at some of the fees and things like that and duplication of fees. If it's not immaterial police it in a, my point is how will that affect the audit?
>> I guess what I'm suggesting is you can debate all day about what the statute says about fees and duplication and cost of services, but I think it would be somewhat of an academic exercise when the city and the county agreed by contract to do it. Whether the statute requires it or not. So the issue comes down to compliance with the contract, and the discussion about wh did statute means is, you know, all sort of nice if you want to write a law review article, but the bottom line is look a what you agreed to by contract because that's very definite and explicit.
>> okay.
>> our residents are not being forced to pay twice for one service.
>> impactly. -- exactly.
>> so when we get a call from a legislator about compliance with the law in January of '04, we need to make reference to 4 here. I think we need to [indiscernible].
>> it's section 242.001, local government code. So 242.01, d-4.
>> what I'm hearing is that we think we have done the best we can to comply with this subsection. And city and county staff will, beginning immediately, as best they can, implement the standards. And six months from January 1, this matter will be back on the agenda of the city council and Commissioners court for us to receive a status report and do the necessary tweaking to increase compliance or further compliance.
>> an important point in between there, too, judge, is the establishment of the process review board which is city and county staff working with the impacted stakeholders. But we're not waiting for six months the find out how we are dog. We will have an ongoing how are we doing which includes the very folks whose advocacy got us to where we are today. And it will be a continuing part of the process.
>> I guess this gets into b, though. I mean we're fixing to talk about, tom, I mean, what we've just gone over, then we don't need to do ts audit for the fees? I mean because it's not going to make any difference what the audit tells us. I mean we have an interlocal agreement. Is that the way I'm to read that?
>> no, in, Commissioner, what I'm suggesting is that's basically a business or policy decision for you all to make.
>> we might as well get done with a. I think on a we're going to take action or not. But let's first see if the stakeholders have something to say that we haven't heard previously. We did get your previous communication. There are legal issues that have been given to tom. The understanding is those issues would not be resolved between now and the end of December, but tom will work on them?
>> well, I responded to him by e-mail yesterday. I don't think any of the five meet code changes right now. Soy rarbd those as resolved. -- regard. Those would be issues for us to work on over the next few days in addition to trying to implement these standards. And issues that pop up during the next six months will be noted, and if not resolved when the matter is brought back to the city council and Commissioners court, we I guess will address them as best we can one by one. So what we need at this time is for us to approve a.
>> move approval.
>> Commissioner Davis moves approval of a, which basically is the joint Travis County-city of Austin code for the e.t.j.
>> second.
>> and that is this inch and a half document. This is staff's effort basically to look at city and county standards and come up with one document that contains one set that we hand our customers. And hope they understand it. Yes, sir.
>> and I suppose this is the best that we can do at this stage. I mean I guess I can get a little comfortable with this given we get to look at it in six months. Kind of like what we voted on a couple weeks ago that we get to look at the early ax compact thing again in January -- early action. You know, I know you all have worked hard, lisa and david, on this thing, and I know our staff has just worked themselves into the ground. And I just -- I mean I hope we can get there. This whole thing came about because there is an issue out there. You all know there's an issue. And that's the unfortunate thing. I mean I realize you all can't wave the magic wand and say yeah, there is. You've got a body of seven other there that -- over there ma makes calls like our body of five. I sure hope when we come back in six months that we've got the stakeholders that -- you know, they are pleased with where we're headed with this thing. We're going have some pains with this deal, I realize, but I'm going to be real interested to see, I mean because I'm cautiously optimistic about being able work through this thing, but I think we need to get beyond where we are and move forward. For that reason --
>> I would also like to acknowledge the work, the considerable amount of work by city staff and the county staff and the stakeholders. I think this has been a very interesting process. If you had asked me two years ago how is this all going to work out -rpbg it's been an interesting ocess, and I think the city folks have been empowered to learn a lot more about how we do business over here and vice versa. I think there is more of a clear understanding, and I think stake hold ersz represented themselves well in terms of articulating the issues he. And I think the thing that makes me satisfied that we are at a point to move forward and get this behind us is the inclusion of the process review board. We have got to give this process a chance to be successful. And we will only know it by adopting this document and then to monitor our progress. But this is a living document. This is, you know, it is subject to change, and therefore that procesreview board is going to be a very important ongoing oversite of whether what we wanted to have happen indeed did and whether there were any unintended consequences, but we're not going to wait two years or wait until the legislature gets back in town. It clearly lays out we will be working with the legislature to see what changes could be derived from amending or even repealing, but we have to give this a chance to work. And I'm ready to not see this on my agenda anymore.
>> who was on the process review board?
>> we expect it to be a smaller set from the group that we've been meeting with the last two years. Probably a smaller group. Lisa and I certainly expect joe and fred will be on there. Probably tom and david. And then the stakeholders will appoint their own representatives, but I expect a handful from the original group which were in the neighborhood of 12 to 15 people.
>> we agreed that a smaller group could probably accomplish more it's important for the Commissioners court to know exactly who is on that board so we know who to give credit to or assign blame.
>> as soon as we -- as soon as we have firmed up the stakeholders, who their representatives are, we'll come back with the formal committee.
>> okay.
>> and I don't want lost the idea in terms of is there a quick and dirty patch that can get us access to the city commuter.
>> I will get our i.t. Folks out and send a memo to joe on that.
>> thafpbgs, appreciate it.
>> any more discussion? 19-a is what we're looking at.
>> I would just like to thank everybody and stakeholders, and also county staff. I think you've done a great job.
>> thank you.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> 19-b. That deals with the management audit.
>> I think I need to clarify the city's position. This has gone back and forth. In the interlocal agreement, the city's position is we agreed to look at duplicative reviews and eliminate that as part of the fee structure. As you know, we've been doing a performance review. We've been evaluating our process. We're well underway in that, and we were not inclined or motivated to have outside person do all that work for us and come up with different recommendations and go through that process, but we are committed to looking at where there's duplication in our process and eliminating that. To that end we have a members of your staff on our process team and we will be working with joe and the consultant on the scope as well as the city's participation on it.
>> in terms of that work product that you all were doing, lisa, is that something that there would be a product that an outside management firm could just validate that what you said is happening in terms of how you are doing your work? It's happening in that way. Meaning you wouldn't have tpaoeu the outside firm to redo -- ironic, duplicative, of something you are already doing, but it basically says they are gettg access to seeing how you are mapping out your process and validating yeah, that's correct and we can accept their work product and move o so we don't pay to do something the second time.
>> that's true, but I think the commitment was never to a performance management audit or to resetting of the fee structure methodology. Us a know, we have general fund fees we collect for this process. It was never set up as cost recovery. And so in looking at where we are in terms of how we can participate, we just need to be clear what the position of the city is and where we would be able to participate. Now, we have agreed to work with the consultants to look at that because in identifying duplicate -- duplicative fees, they need to understand our process. But that is not making any judgments about that process or resetting the fees or changing the methodology or the depth of the study of the draft that we have received. And we've been working with our finance director and our corporate audit folks to determine where, you know, where is it we think our part of the -- of this process is and how that determines the fee schedule with the goal of eliminating duplication. But I think the more far-reaching goals of a cost of service study is certainly I'm not authorize to do enter the city into that. Soy just want to be clear for the record of what the city's position is on that.
>> but I guess though, lisa, and we looked at this and visited this the last time it was to agenda, there was a discussion was brought up as far as, you know, how do you measure or how can you really equate the city's participation in the study itself. What would actually be readily available to help the audit and as far as the scope of services with this particular vendor. How do you measure that? How much work will be available? In other words, would that be equated into dollars, and if so how much would that be aoe kwraeutd. I just feel kind of lost on that because I don't really know the magnitude of what the city is really putting on the table to ensure that nothing has to be revisited. In other words, everything has been done, here it is. Put this as input into your audit to ensure that a lot of these things we are trying to find out is readily available. And so I'm still having a little trouble with that and I don't know how that can -- that phase of it can be done. Of course, the money -- I'm sorry.
>> go ahead.
>> the money issue is something that we have been wrestling with as far as what the county is going to put up, and of course the result of the things that were con continuing oepbt what others wanted to put up, those contingencies, in my opinion, weren't acceptable as far as the money being based on these things. So we were left with a certain amount of money to do a certain amount of work. Since that is the case, there's been a reduction in the amount of money we were going to put forward. My question is how much would that equate to with the city with what you are going to put on the table so this mae can be reduced tpurlt as far as costs.
>> I think the main thing is the scope of work. Tpupl-fledged cost of stud and I survey. Because of the way we set up these was not what we envisioned. We envisioned looking at duplication of efforts and fees and reducing those fees. Identify whag the single fee for service s but the scope of the work that the county is paying for is more of a full performance management audit and also includes redoing the process and setting up the recommendations and setting up all the fees and schedules. And that in and of itself was not what the city envisioned. And therefore that is what's driving the costs. When you look at the activities, I think duplication of the information on duplication is phase 1 of the report, identifying that and looking at those areas and what the fees will be beyond that it goes to performance, performance standards, performance measures, process improvements, and that component of it was not the level of commitment that the city was going to make because we're already making those investments on our own side.
>> okay.
>> but we worked collaboratively as best we can given the program teurs.
>> -- parameters.
>> if the court -- joe, [indiscernible]. If the court decides to approve and go forward with item b there as much as possibl could you probably tell me when would this basically -- the information ought to be readily available and when would that information start trickling down to us to ensure that what the investment that the city is saying they are going to make as far as what they are going to put on the table, can you give me a timing on that as far as -- to --
>> well, [indiscernible]. If I'm hearing lisa correct, what the city is agreeing to is a joint analysis of the processes they have already done, but part of the process analysis, mapping the process is. Would expect that the outcome of that analysis should be ready within 30 days. It's just a matter of deloitte looking at the county's processes and using -- and looking at what the city has already done. That is not the scope of what we originally proposed in the deloitte study. Unless you take it the next step to analyze the cost content of those activities. And also make value judgments about the duplication of those activities, you really don't have the full intent of what we had in the interlocal agreement. And so that is some of the problem I'm having with where we are right now. I'm not sure it would be worth our time and effort to do half the study. You wi be starter about the processes, but you won't get to the underlying sue of whether or not the content of the fee is any -- has any portion of duplication in it. That's the issue. That is the -- at least the way I read the interlocal agreement, that was the intent what we set out to do by contract. So I don't think we're there yet.
>> but is that the interlocal agreement?
>> that is the interlocal agreement.
>> what language is in there?
>> the -- it's provision 7 of the interlocal.
>> [indiscernible].
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> I'm relucnt to recommend to the court that we proceed on a one-sided study and spending money to do that.
>> oh, okay. So I guess again, back to you, hearing what joe has just reveal would to us -- revealed to us, is there anything that you can do to bring this up to the level that -- that -- that it -- where it should be? As far as the city is concerned, kind of get the full participation?
>> I think that we have just reviewed the scope and we have been trying, I have been trying to work with joe and the staff. We probably can come to an -- come to an agreement with something. I don't have that agreement today to make any commitments on behalf of the city. I do know what the focus has been, what the work we have done so from on some of these issues has been. I would be willing to try to get a scope that we can both agree to that meets the intent of what's in the interlocal. But I can't commit beyond my authority.
>> I understand, I understand. I guess -- I guess the next question is when can you -- when would you have the opportunity to do just that? To get that authority or request that authority?
>> I can right to do it as soon as possible. I don't have a date because I would have to meet with the city manager and meet with joe's staff and see if we can harmer out something that's going to meet the intent. Both -- both --
>> exactly what it is that we think needs to be done in order for us to eliminate cost duplication.
>> well, I think we clearly outline understand the scope of the study that we -- the first one that needs to take place is the yeafl is of the -- the evaluation of the processes. How both the city and county -- attach yourself to a subdivision plat and run yourself through the process, find out how many people comment on these things and is there any duplication in what the staffs are doing what they review that subdivision plat. Let's find out. At that point there can be management decisions to stop duplication.
>> uh-huh.
>> if you are doing that, do it. And we will stop doing it. Vice versa. So that at the end of this process, we can also, that's part of the performance management, is if we are continuing to do things, identical to what the other is doing, why is that going on? What value added is there in that? The whole gist of it is to seriously look at their processes and eliminate duplication. And then on basis of that analysis, recommend a fee. The content of which would not charge twice for the same thing. I mean it's plain english. I'm just trying to get there. We had in mind I guess from the county side that this would be a cost of service basis that we wouldn't charge any more or any less than what it actually costs us to do the reviews and inspection. What lisa is saying, at least what I'm interpreting her to say is that the city's posion is that that was not their agreement. That that was not their intent to agree to do that. That we are a cost basis organization, the city is not necessarily a cost basis on this issue.
>> it would be helpful for me, do you have end cops slated, not at this moment, because obviously you don't, do you have wrien down someplace what it is that the city council or the manager approved related to your analysis that's ongoing right now of your process. Because maybe seeing it written down in terms of what you all are trying to accomplish right now on your own related to your own internal review might be helpful to see how close that is to some of the stuff that we are also asking for. So I'm just trying to get a full sense of what's already ongoing. And is it duplicative to ask somebody else to take a -- to do the same thing or is it just a matter of taking a look at what you are doing and we are going to get there? Do you have that written down someplace?
>> I don't have that with me. To -- to go in that level of detail on -- on the level of the study. But we are doing kind of the in-house process improvement on the same areas and we have already changed the process in terms of the teams and the analysis and the review based on that study. Based on our preliminary study, we will continue to do that in pulling in our permitting and some other areas of inspection for this year.
>> have any of those improvements been reduced to writing about the kinds of things that you have already done as you just said?
>> we have some documentation of that.
>> that would be helpful as well to see, just trying to get some of this stuff put approximate down in writing. Because I just heard words going back and forth between everybody this is what we want done. The answer is well, what is being done. Can somebody put it on a piece of paper so we can compare and move on.
>> can we get y'all's names and whatever comments that you have.
>> yes, I'm scott [indiscernible] a firm director with deloitte and touche.
>> chris kennedy a manager with deloitte and touche.
>> any comments today?
>> well, I would just mention that the -- that in our part of looking at, preparing for this -- this bit of work, chris has spent a little bit of time yesterday reviewing some of the documentation that the city has developed over time and work for us to do just what Karen is asking, that we could rely on that information to some extent. Of course we would want to review a little further and validate it further. But based on that review yesterday, it appears that the information is involved and we would be able to work with it. So we would not be staing from scratch. In other words on the city side. So with that in mind we have reduced our fee proposal by about $30,000 in order to alleviate that level of effort knowing that it would be more of a review than the extensive amount of interviews and mapping of the process and what not that would be involved. Because the city has already mapped the processes for us.
>> what [indiscernible]
>> pardon?
>> what's the total right now?
>> 150 --
>> 149 something inexclusive of expenses. Right around 150.
>> okay.
>> Commissioner?
>> did he say 150?
>> um ... Well, I continue to be -- very skeptical of going into this -- of going into this process. I mean, i've even heard a little bit today, I mean, it seems like every time we talk about this subject and we have the -- we have the city with their interpretation of now we are back into the interlocal agreement, that there -- that there is a little bit different impression. Our interpretation of where this thing needs to head. My biggest concern here is that if you all do a comp comprehensive, you know, fee study, I don't think that the city is interested in it. I think that the city knows what they want to charge for their fees, I think that they have established that in their budget process. I don't think it's going to do us any good if we come with an independent audit, we are doing that, you are doing that, y'all don't charge that that's where we are. I honestly in my heart think that the reason that the city really doesn't want to participate in this is because they really don't want those kind of findings coming out in this. I wish that I felt differently but I felt this way from the get-go. I think that we would be absolutely out of our minds to scrape up $150,000, to go the city, here's the study that we found, this is what we need to be doing, I just don't think the city is going to say oh, well thank you very much for doing that $150,000 study, you are exactly right. I don't know where we are getting at the end of the day with spending -- I know that we are begin scratching for all of these dollars. To get up to the 150,000. I also fear that we may not get as complete -- I mean not to say that deloitte is not going to do what they say they are going to do. But we may find out at the end of the day, you know what, what you really need is a little more information on this. So I'm just uncomfortable with the whole thing. Especially after hearing today that our executive manager that's in charge of this is saying I'm not real sure that I thought that we had a problem with the interpretation of what we are after with this fee study. Today I'm hearing that pretty loud and clear. Unless -- unless, you know, lisa you -- you are saying something other than what I'm hearing. So I can't -- I mean I just am not supportive of us spending $150,000 to go into something that I don't think that the city -- that it's going to do us any good. Other than what we have always said, there is something for us to be able to take to the legislature and say, now we have complied, we have done everything that you all told us. And we did it, we spent our money, we have gone through the motions. But at the end of the day aim not sure we are where we need to be.
>> let me play devil's advocate here. If indeed deloitte has the information, that this indeed is what the city process is, it's fully mapped out, they can validate, we can work with this, they are going to have full and complete access to what's happening on the county side of the ledger, perhaps at the end of the da what they are recommending is to us, county, this is where -- where we would give you some advice related to what's on your side of the house. We can't force the city to take anybody else's recommendations. But I would still find value in that, to know is it a problem on our side of the house or theirs. Now, in terms of fixing which side of the house it is, we only have control over our side, but that is a valuable process. I think what I have heard over and over from the stakeholders is that while we have excellent people that work for the city and county, it is only going to be with an outside group coming into validate findings that anyone is going to believe it. So that's kind of where I'm at. That I would find value even if it's only Travis County that acts on what it is that they have found. What was important for me is are you all at least going to have the information on the city side of the ledger for you to be able to say what is or is not happening. And I'm hearing that you can work with the information that's already been gathered. Validate it. And at least get this Travis County's piece of this done and they have brought down the price of this thing especially from where we first started, it was what, 220 when we first started. We are down to about 150, we have already put our $100,000 out there. And indeed, you know, we have been whining about the city putting up some money on this. Well, the value of what they have already done, there's a $30,000 value to what they are already doing that they can bring to the process in terms of moneys to be p on the table.
>> Commissioner, I'm not saying that we wouldn't get something out of it. Aughter] I'm in full agreement that I think that we would probably find it very helpful for us. But after that is done, what do we really have? We don't really have anything that allows us to go to the city to say hey this is a real deal, you all need to comply with this. I don't think that's where we are going to get. Which is the reason that I have always said if we are going to go through this fee structure, then let's let this get to January first so that there is forced arbitration on that the city -- I do think if the city participates money-wise, not just we are going to get our staff involved with this. Where -- where there really -- because, you know, you put money into the deal, you get real involved. I mean, it's more than joe go over there and work with these guys on thing. And I would feel much more comfortable if I knew where we were is where we had a real partnership in going into this thing. So i've been -- I think that we are going to get something out of it.
>> are you saying that the fee duplication issue is not covered by 1445?
>> well, it's certainly not -- certainly not present on the face of the statute. But house bill 1445 and house bill 1204, like a lot of legislation, on controversial topics, is -- is, you know, less than absolutely clear in resolving it. A lot of times what legislators have to do to get a bill passed is, you know, write a bill that's not exactly clear and leave some issues unresolved. So -- so there's not a whole lot on the face of the statute on the fee issue. But again there is a lot on the face of the interlocal agreement on the fee issue. On the stay with us, under the statute, is it forced arbitration eligible?
>> I -- I read the state to say you can arbitrate over the interlocal itself because what -- what the statute requires the city and the county to certify is the agreement. So it seems -- it seems to be that the -- you know, whatever is in the agreement, if it's causing the dispute, it's eligible for arbitration.
>> but I guess for the city do we need to change the language or comply with it? The language seems to be pretty straightforward. 7 a, b and c.
>> yeah. Uh-huh.
>> I think when we originally were talking about the concept of recovery of fees, the language -- [multiple voices]
>> I know the language, I have seen the language. I think there was still a difference of interpretation in terms of if we eliminated the duplication then we would be recovering those fees for the review that we have without cost recovery type enterprise fund approach of -- of a way of setting fees. So we could go back and forth on the lapping. But I have -- on the language, but I have been clear on what the city will and will not do in terms of that. The duplication of fees is the focus.
>> did the city sign the agreement, the interlocal that you are making reference to.
>> I signed the interlocal.
>> you are saying in a basically the parties shall undertake and complete a review of fees charged to subdivision plat applicants in the e.t.j. By August 31, 2003. We obviously didn't make that dead line. But undertake a complete and complete a review of fees charged, and the next one is even more definitive. The purpose of the review shall be to revise city and county fees to, one, eliminate double recovery of costs at work and/or services that are duplicative and add no value to the process of subdivision review and some other stuff. And, two, at the same time provide for full recovery of the actual review approval, inspection and administrative work. Is that right? And, three, what you made reference to earlier says based on the review the parties shall revise their fees in the e.t.j.
>> uh-huh.
>> effective October 1 of 2003. Those are really three specific things it seems to me. If we do those, we are doing a whole lot more than you say the city is willing to do. And if that is so, then it certainly ought not to be an agreement signed by both of us, that says something this beginning active. I agree with Commissioner Daugherty that if we are not going to do this and be serious about it, it doesn't make sense for us to spend $150,000.
>> uh-huh.
>> my thinking all the time was that we would get this done but instead of this -- of the county using county personnel to get it done, we would pay for it. And the city would have personnel in place to complete process that we were told it already had done.
>> ms. Gordon used a word, I need to find out what the meaning of that word implies. It ho to do with the -- it had to do with the word enterprise. Because I can read this now going okay wait a minute under 7 b 2, it does say provide for full recovery of the actual cost of review, approval, inspection and administrative work and/or services. Does this mean and not one penny more or that these fees can be used as an enterprise fund that you can actually, I hate to say this word like this, make money on the process? Because that would be -- that would be a very different thing and that would then delineate in this report what is cost of recovery and not one penny more and what might be what you choose to charge that is over and above that in terms of an enterprise fund and not st cost of recovery.
>> my only point was to say that when we are setting up general fund fees, the -- the fee schedule is not on an actual cost recovery basis in terms of how you set up cost centers, indirect, direct costs, how you might set the ritz for, say, enterprise -- the rates for say an enterprise fund, how we would go about setting those rates. This is a different process that's used. In looking at reviewing those fees and reviewing duplication, we would still be using the same fee -- the fee setting model that we use when we set up general fund revenues and not -- in relationship to enterprise. Type of fund. That was my point.
>> okay. Is it your impression that you are fully recovering, do you get a sense that you are fully recovering what it does cost for you to provide this service or that you as a lot of stuff in government we don't even come close to recovering what it truly does cost. E.m.s. Is probably the thing that immediately comes to mind. We don't charge for the helicopter what it costs to run the helicopter. We couldn't possibly recover the true cost. It's just intended that it's always, it's less than the full cost of recovery. Some things you can get the full cost of recovery. What is your sense about whether you all indeed recovering all of your costs or not.
>> I haven't done that assessment, I can't tell you if we are over or under. I would suggest that there's a lot of general fee costs so that level of assessment I have not done.
>> I have two more questions and then I'm done on this item. My first question is as to 7 a, b and c of the interlocal, do you think that we are at a point where we need to change it or comply?
>> I think what I would propose is that perhaps during the -- during the 30 day evaluation period, that the consultants were going to do, that the city and county could get together and harmer out what the actual scope would be that we could commit to. Then if there's an amendment to the interlocal agreement then that would be fine if that's required. If not we can do it within that, a little bit more detailed review than that would be would be what I suggest.
>> is our agreement that it will take 30 days to get that done?
>> [indiscernible]
>> I'm sorry. All this gets down to executive intent, you know, and I'm having a difficult time finding out what that is. So -- so.
>> let me ask my second question then, where are we on this fee duplication issue from the city's perspective?
>> I think we need more discussion about the scope of the study.
>> [indiscernible] what --
>> I guess what I'm thinking is why isn't it simply a matter of looking at 7 a, b and c. Trying to figure out what the city will or will not do under that? Or if the city has some idea of what it wants done and is willing to do, just reduce that to writing between now and next Tuesday? I don't know that the county can force the city to do anything. But we can plead and we can get some -- some definite statement of what the city is willing to do on this issue that we can make our decision. We have to decide whether to spend $150,000. There is some value in us getting that information for our own use, I think, because good government tells me we should not be doing work that the city is already doing, just accept the city's results.
>> if we do that, we certainly charge for it. The city should charge one fee. I would think that not only applies to area, but should apply to every other area of government. So there is value in that. But at the same time I was hoping that we would sit down and work with consultants and basically come up with a report that enabled both of us to do better and to achieve as to fees and inspections what's set out in 7 a around b -- a, b and c. Can't we do that? 30 days, why spend 30 days in a study I guess if the consultant needs to be paid for 30 days of working. Why can't the city have just a heart to heart among city staff, with the city manager, about what you are willing to do and come back and let us know next Tuesday?
>> okay. I can do that.
>> I have thought that -- I have thought based on what I heard from the city in court and what the city manager told me, that we were in general agreement as to getting this done. But to be honest, our discussions were not at the level of specificity that we are trying to get at in order to determine what we want the consultant to do. I mean, that's why we are, isn't it? Susan?
>> yeah. I am concerned about the time that we've already taken with the consultant to be honest. The way it looks to me, he have an interlocal with the city. Judge you read it it's very cheer what we were going to do. The city and county has agreed with that all along. We did not meet the deadline which the stakeholders pointed out I guess it was last week. The scope of service was put together, consistent with the interlocal which was agreed to in writing contractually by the city and the county. And it seems to be consistent with the legislation if you are going to eliminate duplication, you certainly can't charge for the those services. So it's almost hard to believe that someone contemplated that you would streamline, you would not duplicate, but you would continue charging the old way. The fees were not an integral part of that. A scope of work was put out which was consistent with that interlocal and the intent of the law as we Travis County and that interlocal sought. There have been -- there has been several meetings with the city of Austin. Okay the first point they said is that, yeah, they were for it, but they couldn't pay for it. We had stakeholders that said they would help out. The city did not want to accept that. So the r the stakeholder money was not used. Travis County put in more money so that we would comply with the spirit and the law the way we saw it was written. Now we have -- the city said last week, that they had the process flows done and I asked ms. Gordon that, she said yes they didn't want to give it to us that day, they would give it to us the next day last Wednesday in a meeting before the council met. Now we still apparently don't have that in writing because Commissioner Sonleitner asked for it, that was the processes. What I hear the city saying is they are not interested in a management audit of the processes and the costs. Period. Which is what is proposed here for both organizations. So I mean to me this is a major issue to the entire agreement and the intent of what the legislation meant and how we, the two governments, are going to address it. If the city does not provide financial data for the consultants to analyze, then they can't analyze the costs. So the city can do that. So I mean I think where we are right now. And I don't know if you want to take another week or not, what we are is we can proceed with this if it matters, we can do our part and the -- and we can conclude the city of Austin has in fact defaulted on the interlocal with Travis County and they will not allow an analysis of the cost structure and they are not interested in -- in eliminating costs. That can be a conclusion if that is the conclusion. Or the city might change their mind and give the consultants access to the data so that they can analyze the costs. But that kind of is where we are right now. I am disappointed that with the work that the consultants have done, the meetings that have taken place, with the idea that the city was going to comply with the interlocal and now we really see that it appears as though they are not. I do think whatever you decide to do. If you decide because of the city's new stance that you are not going to proceed in that, I think we owe some money to the consultants because I think we gave them the impression this was going to go forward and they have -- they have invested some real money in this. I feel that we shouldn't continue to engage them if in fact we don't intend to do that. They've had a significant amount of time in good faith and the county has act understand good faith with where we are today.
>> let me ask you this question, lisa. I think the judge did pose the question that was basically maybe coming back next week. The interlocal itself that exists in the [indiscernible], a, b and c, is there any way possible within that -- within that week for -- for the city manager, your staff and with the city, in coming back and -- and giving us an answer, I guess? Is that enough time? Because what I'm fearful of, if it's not in the -- in the context that -- well the judge laid out, but joe laid out first, gieselman, who really, has -- I think that he's done a good job on this. If it's not in that context of what we are talking about here, then that means to me it -- there won't be enough time before this thing may fall to arbitration on some of these things anyway. As you know, I don't think any of us are advocates of arbitration. But sometimes that's -- that's the way things go and of course if that does happen, according to legal, that means that there will be some costs, money, associated on both parties, that means the city of Austin and also Travis County. Which have -- which are taxpayer dollars. So I think as much as possible, if we can avoid and I think we are trying to do that, avoid arbitration, whereby the arbitrator will not assess and have much business from us, I think that we need to head in that direction. So I'm really concerned about -- I think all of us are, about coming back in the -- in the next week and letting us know one way or the other if -- if what is being presented here is something that you all can live with. Within the interlocal because I think that's -- that's the crux of the matter in my opinion. So is that enough time to come back and let us know one way or the other in writing, this is what we have, this is what we can do, if there is any variance in the interlocal, then this is what the variance would be. But I'm really -- I'm really leaning toward my staff, t.n.r., Joe gieselman, legal and folks like that, to help me make a decision so what we are doing, where the county is just not left out there by itself. Of course the stakeholders and everyone else are -- is kind of anxious to look to see if -- if he duplicates something that we need to really address in -- and get rid of. So -- so that gives -- that's the question, is that enough time for you to deal with it?
>> I will make every effort to come back with some type of response from the city in terms of the scope. What the city is willing to participate in and what not. I think conceptually, early on, we agreed to the concept of elimination of duplication in the fees and how that would allow us to reset the fees. But a full-blown cost of service, which sets up a cost of service model, which we don't have right now, was a little bit more in terms of -- than we actually saw the scope of that. So I can do everything that I can to get a response from the city.
>> well, do we have in writing, joe, a scope of service that we think would be appropriate?
>> a -- yes, we have a scope. It has been proposed by deloitte in several phases.
>> has the city manager seen that.
>> I believe we have shared this on several occasions.
>> the city's team has it. We haven't gone over it in detail. But I will try to make sure that we can get that done so we can get a response to the Commissioners court for next week.
>> has the city manager seen it, toby?
>> has she seen the scope. I have given her a briefing on it, but she has not gone over it in detail.
>> what can I do to help you, anything? Stay over at the county, stay out of the way?
>> I think -- I think that I can go back and get the city's position for you.
>> I'm missing something here and I just need to take a little time out. Say, okay. Lisa, with the interlocal in front of us, it -- just going on the surface, the parties, city and county, shall undertake a complete and -- and complete a review of fees charged to subdivision plat applicants in the e.t.j. By August 31st, 2003. With that language there, what did you all -- how do you all intend to do your piece of that review?
>> Commissioner Sonleitner, I would just like to get back to you with the city's position. If that would be appropriate. Because going back and forth over the language and over what the city is willing to commit to, I don't have the full authority to do that so I would rather give you a full response as opposed to trying to answer questions in this forum without the information.
>> because I can see where we could get hung up on b. But it seems like if a says we are all going to review the fees and if you then jump to c, based on that review, we are going to revise fees, seems like we are fussing on the b piece in terms of, well, okay, what's the methodology, who is going to do it. Is it going to be a dual review or duplicative review, are we going to have a single office review or city taking a look at the city side, county versus the county side. The reality is I don't see how the county can complete its work without knowing what the city does. Quite frankly I can't see how the city could complete its work without knowing what the county was. I will let it be no today. But I'm just -- for today, but I'm just -- if we can't agree that this audit is a good idea, I really do need to get a -- some kind of a response back from the city of saying okay then fine, what did you intend by a, b and c. How are you going to get there, how was the county going to be involved in that process? And i'll wait for that answer.
>> we are coming to the point of getting from the city some indication of where the city will go. So now respectively, not so much this language seems to be pretty clear. But I mean I think that I made the point -- I'm at the point where we need to decide where do we go from here. I think that I heard susan loud and clear about deloitte having earned some compensation, some amount for services provided to this date. So we certainly want to do the right thing. But we need another week, I think, so we can kind of work through this, figure out exactly where to go.
>> Commissioner Daugherty?
>> well, that was my one question. You all may not be prepared to tell me that. I would like to know what the figure is. It's what?
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> more than a pat on the back and a handshake. [laughter] ment.
>> okay. Let's do that next week. Whatever the city's position is, if we could just know that, we can decide how to proceed.
>> I'm confused.
>> anything else on this from anybody here?
>> thank y'all.
>> thank y'all very much.
>> thank y'all.
>> we will have this back on next week.
Last Modified: Tuesday, December 17, 2003 6:46 AM