Travis County Commssioners Court
January 13, 2004
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 4
4. Consider and take appropriate action on interlocal agreement for the operation and maintenance of the regional radio system
>> before you get started, thank you for the one page summary, that really encapsulated about 10 years worth of work in a very easy to understand document. Thank you, appreciate it.
>> I'm danny hobby, the emergency services coordinator. This is an important time, I think, for all of us in regards to portions of the rdmt project. This radio project, as you know, is the first initiative that was started some 10 years ago. And as a result of us working, Travis County working with other coalition members, which you have listed in your summary sheet, which I will mention here today, the city of Austin, the Austin independent school district, the capital metropolitan transportation authority, the university of Texas at Austin, Texas legislative council and house of representatives, we now have finished, I'm happy to announce, the implementation plan of this regional radio system. And so now it's time to put in place this -- this interlocal agreement for the operation and maintenance of the system. This particular document was not done in two weeks. This was done over the last year and a half.
>> yeah.
>> and so a lot of time and a lot of effort have been put into this. And I'm pleased to be able to present this to you today. We feel like from the Travis County point of view, that -- that we have put everything in there that we feel likely -- will protect us, but also enable us to use this system for the benefit of our citizens as well as for every agency that's going to be using the system. I would like to, if I coorks give special mention to -- if I could, give special mention to several people that I feel like have made this particular document happen. To my left is major terry pickering, who is also chair of the wireless board. Through his guidance and his advice and his just being there over these number of years with this particular project and through this agreement, we owe him a lot of gratitude. To my right is our radio communications manager, senior radio communications manager, walt leslie, walt is the guy that's really been in the trench here as far as implementation. I can't think of a better radio person that has expertise in radio matters than walt leslie. And when the city hired him, that was a real plus for us. I would also like to thank barbara wilson, who probably doesn't want me to be doing this, but she spent I don't know how many hours putting this together in negotiating with other attorneys, and of course I must also say thank you to the city of Austin and their staff because they I think did an outstanding job on this as well. As you see before you, there are certain things in here that are important for us. One is this is an administrative document in that it allows us to have in place the appropriate communication mechanisms to where decisions can be made, both in regards to operations of the system, as well as in policy making, as well as in budget. Enhancements to the system. Those are important. That you just don't have one group that's making a decision. It has to be filtered through. I think this whole process has been enhanced by having that in place from the very beginning to where it had to go through several bodies before actual decision making recommendations were made to eventually it comes to you. I left a group of folks out awhile ago, I wanted to save them for last, that's you. You have been through this project now for about 8 years. And some of you have been through the whole process. And I think that it's -- it's commendable that you really took a risk 8 years ago. Because when we started talking about bringing together organizations that weren't used to working together as far as having systems that could communicate with one another, but basically acted independent in a lot of ways, now in a lot of ways we were working together because I have found public safety especially, there's just a great relationship there. So when there's emergencies and things that are there, everybody comes together. But we didn't have our communication systems together. This is before 9/11 as you remember, but anyway I want to thank you for going out and making this leap of where we did want to try to bring this community together, both in public safety, as well as in public service. Now, we have a system that has interoperability. Many years ago we never heard that, but thousand that's all we hear. There could be a multitude of people behind is, there's not really any one person to take credit for anything. But I want to thank you as a courted. What you see in the documentation, there is a users group, an operator board, a governing board. Travis County is going to be well represented on the governing board, which is a policy making board as well as a review of budget that will come to you. During the budget process. Theyment be made up of basically one member from each of the parties. Except I do want to not throw you off a little bit, the Texas house and the legislative council have combined into one and so you are going to see that they have one representative. This particular document has me sitting in the emergency services coordinator sitting on the governing board as well as on the ctek governing board, so there's consistency on both much those. On the operations board there are four members that will be sitting on that particular board and that will be a representative from tcso, that will be a representative from emergency services, that will be a representative from t.n.r., That will be a representative from the constables. Below that is the users group. Of course that's all of the various agencies that come to meetings to just talk about the day to day needs of the system. Even though I have said that we have implemented this system, we are still working out some of the things that are necessary for this system to be complete. In other words, users are not out there testing the system, using the system, coming in with what things need to be corrected and -- but i'll let major pickering tell you about how things are going since they are a major user of the system at this time if he wishes to do that. The other thing that you see in here is a -- a budget process. That is due to the coalition members having different budget years, there are certain dates that we have to comply with which fits well within our own budget process, I'm happy to say. Which we will be doing things way in advance due to the fact that the state has to have information a little bit quicker than we do. You also have in this document, I think, some very sound performance measures as well as some things regarding payment schedules, as far as withdrawal, as far as protecting our -- the various assets that are out there. I think that you will see a very thorough review of that. It may seem complicated but believe me that it's important that it is there. Today I would just like to ask for your consideration and your approval of this document so that we can now move forward. And begin this process of -- of working this document as it should be worked. I will close by simply saying this. As with any interlocal agreement, it is only as good as it is managed. I think what you are wanting notice do and my staff to do is to make sure that this document is well managed. That's the important key. That's what makes it work. So I will conclude there and answer any questions that you might have. You on or walt if you would like to say anything, feel free to.
>> let me ask a quick question here.
>> the one page summary, the next to the last bullet, what does that mean, automatically renews for up to 40 additional terms of 12 months?
>> go ahead.
>> 40 years.
>> the [indiscernible] of the Texas constitution and the law require that we not enter into an agreement that extends past one fiscal year. When they were looking at the life span of this equipment, and the hope that is involved within our interoperability, they wanted to make the contract go as long as they possibly could. The number that the group selected was 40 years. Each year, at the end of the contract year, it will automatically renew unless we take an action to terminate it so that it's a one-year agreement that will extend 40 years unless we take an action to get out of it.
>> that term is incredibly long as compared to the ones that we are used to seeing. Help me understand -- why this is 40 and not --
>> 20.
>> I can understand how -- I would think five years from now, we would live in a different world. 40 years from now is probably a different universe.
>> we wod, but the -- but the -- this agreement is kind of an extension of the first agreement. The first agreement was the one that bought the equipment, this is the one to operate the equipment. The amount of money that the Commissioners court invested in that equipment as the county's share is approximately $10 million. The total cost of the system is approximately $40 million. It seemed unlikely that we would be replacing that system quickly. Throughout that -- the term of the contract there will of course have to be upgrades and improvements along the way. But -- but the -- it was kinds of felt that we wouldn't be -- we would be needing to use this as long as we possibly could. We wouldn't want to be just replacing it until we got to the point that we really couldn't do the job anymore.
>> okay. So -- so how easy is it to modify this agreement?
>> less easy than some because there are six parties to it. But because it -- because it provides in it for --
>> let me hear the best argument for 40 years rather than five, 10, 15 or 20? 20.
>> let me give you my shot at it. I'm the one that's probably responsible for the 40 judge.
>> by the way, I'm sitting here thinking that our term of office is four years.
>> yes, sir.
>> there is binding the next court and there is binding the next two generations. Binding the next court we are kind of used to. I don't know that we are used to binding future generations, though, but there may well be good reason for that. That's why I'm listening. That will give you a little bit of a chance to think about your answer.
>> I don't have to think about it because believe me we thought long and hard about it when we went through this section. But I guess where I'm coming from is this: after spending 10 years working on this, and realizing how interesting it was putting together a coalition, which now that I look at it 10 years later, you know, it was okay. I mean, it was rewarding, it was exciting, it was something of which -- it was a real challenge and we did it. But because of the amount of effort that was made in that, pressure that it wasn't just bringing together agencies, it wasn't just putting together people that at one time politically didn't know each other that well, but also what it was doing is putting together systems that were once separated and unique in their own right. Now they are all together, so -- so what I found was we also as far as funding had some interesting dynamics. So of us had to go out and do bond elections, some of them had to raise money different ways, so it wasn't easy like it is now where I'm hopeful that through homeland security and all of that there's going to be funding that's now going to be available for enhancements to our system, as well as to other agencies in the county working out arrangements to where they can actually join this system. That's something else that I forgot to mention awhile ago, they are associates, esd's, pd's that we dispatch for. But, judge, it comes down to this: we have looked for 20 years, in fact it was agreed upon for a long time to go for 25 years. We looked at the c-tech agreement, I think that is pretty long as well.
>> it's long --
>> what's the reason for 40 years, I still haven't heard that? What's the best reason for 40 years?
>> the reason is I think brings stability to that coalition that was -- took so long to form and to put together and to keep it, judge, to not allow it to go away. So b having a long-term commitment to this, then and you have long-term commitment by agencies continuing to work together. This would discourage anyone from trying to think that this is just a -- a quick agreement that you can get rid of after five years or after 10 years. And that this coalition will stay together. It's important it stay together. There's been too much investment, time put into it. We know that it's going to work. It's better for the community, addresses all of the concerns of homeland security. We thought a 40 year would put in the minds like it's doing to you today, why in the world do you want to go that long? We want to go that long because the investment in time and the real importance of having this coalition stay.
>> okay. This is a contract document.
>> yes, sir.
>> it is based on the good faith of the partners as well as the partners strong desire to be part of the partnership. Let's say that your successor is successful in persuading the next Commissioners court that in fact this deal ain't the best one and there's a better way for Travis County to do it. And that is in another collaboration. So is that court free to -- to take your successors' vice.
>> yes, that's a very good question. That's in the agreement [multiple voices]
>> I don't have a copy of the agreement with me. So I can't tell you the page, I'm sorry about that. The -- the agreement provides for many ways to get out of the agreement. Any one entity can leave the agreement and it resides for how their share of the original investment will be taken care of. The entire group can decide this isn't working and we -- the way it's written and we need to start over again. And it provides for how the assets will be handled in that situation. In fact, the largest amount of time spent in negotiating this agreement was spent in relation to -- I'm thinking it's section -- oh, page 23, section entitled withdrawal of a partner, that means the partner leaves because they feel like leaving and what happens. After that, section 16, which talks about termination of a partner, if a partner isn't doing what needs to be done, whether it be paying or complying with f.c.c. Regulations or something that is -- that is damaging to the system, they can be brought out of the -- bought out of the system, what I hope is a good job of protecting their financial investment in the initial project for them as they are either asked to leave or decide to leave on their own.
>> okay. I'm going to need another week. The only issue that I have is really the 40 years. And I guess my other question is have the other governmental entities considered and improved this document.
>> where we are judge, that's why it's important that we if we can get approval today, because what has happened is the city of Austin has gone already before their council and they have already been given the authority to negotiate and execute. That happened about three weeks ago. The other agencies, that's why I wanted to bring this several months ago to you, we had this things ready, it just that the other coalition members had to send it up through their legal ranks to make sure that everything was kosher with the legal elements of this particular document. As soon as I got red -- the go ahead to move forward, that everybody has agreed to do this. Of course what will be happening now is that capital metro will be going, I think at the end of this month, aisd is ready to go and -- and u.t. Has to wait, I think, until the regents meet.
>> the answer to my question is no.
>> the answer to your question is no. But, judge, the 40 years is not to me based upon what -- if you read the agreement, the 40 years is only a caveat that was put in there because it came close to matching the c tech, but it is it should fit a coalition and should fit something that's not short term.
>> okay. Well, based on what you have advised me, previously, I was ready to go. But when I read your backup, especially the cover memo, the 40 years did stand out. It clashes with many, many strong principles that I have held dear for years. Unfortunately I'm one of those on the court who have been here from the beginning of this deal so I'm going to need a week. Our policy basically gives me that. But 40 years is a big deal, 40 years is a long time. If you are on the court three successive term that's 12 years. 40 years is many, many courts. That's not to say that it shouldn't be 40, but it is to say we are used to thinking in increments much smaller. I need to go back and reread. When I looked at the contract, it's a voluminous document, I'm not sure that I read each and every word, but your memo highlighted one point for me. When I tried to find exactly what language covered it in the document I could not. I would need to do that between now and next week. I would feel a lot differently if weapon the last one and the other four or five had already approved 40 years. It's one thing for a lawyer to look at it. Legally it's all right. And legally there's no problem with it, but from a policy perspective, it's a long time. I mean --
>> judge --
>> if it would give you any comfort this would not be the first time the court has entered into a 40 year agreement. It is the biggest 40 year agreement that I'm aware of. But when we have done agreements relating to the use of county property by -- by volunteer fire departments and emergency services districts and similar types of entities.
>> lcra.
>> lcra, there have been either licenses or leases that have been granted that would in a total be 40 year agreements. The one that --
>> we were saying we won't give you this but we will give you a lease long enough for you to conclude that it's yours, right? That's a little different. This is four or five partners. We enjoy working with these entities, I'm sure the relationship will be fine and dandy. Fine and dandy over a 40 year period ain't quite the same as fine and dandy over 40. I'm just saying I'm not yet over 40 years. I would be surprised if the other policy makers don't have the same concern about that period. Can we between now and next Tuesday sort of informally feel them out about 40 years?
>> I don't really think that, you know, that they are going to have a problem with moving it back to -- if you want to go 25 years or 30 years. Again, all that was was a confidence builder to put in. I just, you know, I don't think it's going to be that big of a deal, judge, as far as the 40 years. It wasn't something that was -- that was thrown up that we had to have 40 years. Again i'll take the responsibility for that one only because I threw it out as a caveat to make this a long-term process. It does not mean at any time you can't greet out of the agreement. That's built in.
>> let me look at it and see.
>> it wasn't a big issue among the coalition member, judge.
>> I don't know that I have heard a compelling reason for 40. That same rationale would apply to five, 10, 15, 20. Whether we like it or not, we do tight hands of our success sores, our success sores, success sores, successors, successors, successors, that's what bothers me. I'm going to need another week to see if I can get there to 40. It would help me, I guess, if we could call the city council members and say, you know, we are looking at a 40 year agreement, here's the reasons why we ought to do it, do you have any problems with it like the mayor. If the others think 40 is all right, I can have a -- I can have a mental shift. But it is counter to the mental attitude that i've had to obligating the next courts since i've been on the court. In my mind I really have drawn a strong distinction, delineation between what we are asked to do today and leases to the other governmental entities of assets, public assets, rightly or wrongly. Anybody else on the court?
>> that's fair, we can wait a week.
>> I can wait a week.
>> it's just that --
>> to let you know I have a comfort level with the 40 because it doesn't say we must do it for 40. There's a renewal clause, we can give 12 months, but I can understand why you want to have that security because while this is just one small portion, it is a small portion but an proportion of a much bigger project that the combined entities spent more than $100 million on, and it would be arbitrary and capricious for somebody to say we choose to go another way. But the contract from my reading of those sections clearly says you can go another way. But you give everybody 12 months notice but you can get out of it if you want to.
>> that would be vastly different technology 10 years from now.
>> judge, I understand.
>> I eagerly look forward to our next Tuesday discussion or action. If I'm the only one with the 40 year spur in the saddle, I can -- I'm over it by next Tuesday, then -- then we will be ready for action on it.
>> I think there were some good points that you brought up, judge.
>> I think enough has been said on that. In fact I have a couple of other questions, also. So next week I think we will be appropriate to -- to bring it back. Give us a chance to -- to make sure all of these questions are answered.
>> be glad to.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you all very much. Appreciate your dedication and hard work. Creativity and boldness.
Last Modified: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:18 AM