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 12
Number 12 is to consider request to certify compliance -- frank, did we let you say what you need to?
>> that's all I had on that one. Did you want to do number 10? I didn't hear that on consent and I didn't know if you wanted to comment on that.
>> we were asked to postpone number 10 until next week. Sorry about that. 12, consider request to certify compliance with chapter 242, local government code regarding the interlocal agreement between Travis County and the city of Austin for regulation of subdivisions in the extraterritorial jurisdiction and take appropriate action. Joe.
>> this is a follow-up item to the action taken by the court several weeks ago to adopt the single code for the review and approval of subdivisions in the e.t.j. Of Austin. The Austin city council did certify that the process has adopted -- as adopted in that code complied with the state laws that govern subdivision review in the e.t.j. Thus far the county has not taken action to certify. I believe tom nuckols will advise you in your executive session just exactly what the law says and what it takes to comply with the law. From a business perspective, the court also authorized the county to proceed with a management audit of the subdivision review process, and that is going on right now. That study is broken into two phases. The first phase should be completed by the end of this month. And that is an identification of duplication. The second phase is to be completed by the end of March. That will identify what the basis is for the county's fee to make sure that our fee, what we charge corresponds with the activity that we do that is not duplicative of the springfield. -- of the city. So what I suggested to tom is that perhaps instead of certifying in lump sum, that we perhaps do a two-step certification. A step that we would certify to the single code and to all the provisions of the law that -- that are set forth with regard to the review, activities and the code itself. But that we reserve full certification, we hold that in abeyance until after we have completed the management audit. What I don't want to end up doing is for the court to certify to the process and then the management audit come back and in fact shows there's some duplication. That would -- that would somewhat contradict the certification. So that is why this is being brought back to the court. It is something you have choices on. I think you may get legal advice that you can in fact certify, but from a business perspective, I just want to make you aware there is a management audit going on, and from my perspective, I would at least like to have a two-step process to enable us to see the results of that audit before we go into a full 100% we think we're done.
>> I know that we had to complete our work by January 1st. But is there a deadline related to a city or county doing this certification? What's the deadline for it? Or is there one?
>> there's a deadline. It was supposed to have been done by January 1st. That's what I need to advise knew executive session on, the consequences of that.
>> you have told us in open court several times that if we took the action that we took, you thought we would be able to certify compliance. If there is more -- so far, is that what you are saying?
>> you can certify compliance. It really comes down to do you want to reserve the option of arbitration for this last -- what could be an outstanding issue between the city and the county on the fee issue.
>> why don't we just certify and take that out?
>> I think that's the option joe is suggesting. Certify everything but the fees.
>> okay. Do we need to go into executive session to do that?
>> well, if you all -- if you want to hear the pros and cons of it, there are some legal pros and cons, just like any other legal issue.
>> other than what we heard during the last year? How many times it came up. [laughter]
>> basically it comes down to the deadline -- i'll go ahead and lay it out. The statute says if you haven't certified by January 1st, 2004, you are supposed to be in arbitration. And there's a deadline in the statute for, you know, the various steps in the arbitration process.
>> well, if we get an inquiry from a concerned legislator who wonders whether we are in compliance, and wants to see it in writing, wouldn't it be reasonable for that person to expect us to send something that says on the blank day of blank in open court the Travis County Commissioners court in tpaobgt certified compliance, and based on the following actions it had taken. I mean do we -- I remember the last time I had questions in court, my question was basically when asked why do we think we have complied, what specific reasons would we give. That was one of the four options that we think we pulled out and attempted to comply with, and we think we have. Right? So why wouldn't our certification basically include just that? A written document that says basically we deliberated this matter over a period of blank to blank and worked with the city of Austin stakeholders, et cetera, and when we took the action, I guess it was two weeks ago, we basically implemented option number blank. That in our view enables us to comply with the law. At some point we will be asked are we complying and with what.
>> but the leverage point is the kind of still outstanding issue is what about the fees and what about the duplication, which is really in the interlocal, not -- it's not in the state hraurbgs although I think they are linked. And we will have -- considering we don't have any leverage with the city other than those kinds of things, it may be worth our while to certify what we can and leave in abeyance, as you kind of said there, the fee issue so we have that refuse rage point with the -- leverage point with the city in terms of when we talk these duplications.
>> would you feel better if we pulled this up in executive session?
>> yes.
>> we will discuss number 12 in executive session along with the other executive session items today. We'll -- tom, we won't have just a discussion.
>> right.
>> if we're going to talk in executive session, the points that I would like to make sure that I'm at least on the right page here, and that is, number one, we do have the fee issue. Number two, we have sort of all agreed that we're going to have this six-month review process and sort of look at this thing. What we're really saying here is that we know that we haven't complied. Now, I think that we still have a pretty stable leg to stand on, I mean, in the legislature -- and I do think that the hrelgt ture is going to deal with this again because I think at the end I fear that we are not going to really get to where the stakeholders really want us to be. And the legislature is going to look at this. Now, I would love to show them our eight weeks of hard negotiation and with our t.n.r. Manager going in saying this is how many meetings and here are how many hours or organization spent on trying to get this thing to where you all told us you wanted us to get, which is to comply with 1445. So what I don't want to do is I don't want to sign off on this except for this. I mean, if I'm going to do that, I would rather just say if we really want to comply with the letter of what this thing says, we ought to be in arbitration. And then I think we have the stronger leg to stand on. Now, you know, I'm willing to listen to the legal for that, but I'm uncomfortable saying, okay, you know what, we've -- you kind of got us to a spot where we're willing to say that we're complying with 1445 knowing that we're not because we don't have the fee done, and there are some other issues that we don't -- that we've kind of, I think, sort of looked the other way to just sort of get to a point where we're moving forward. Because I though that none of us have wanted to go to arbitration. I mean it's costly. I mean it's contentious. But the truth of the matter is is that we have been driven to this spot where we've been willing to go. I mean, we were willing to go in enough time to even do the fee thing. I mean, probably, and had we really gotten the cooperation from our partner that is correct being the city of Austin in this deal, so I'm going to be rereluctant to say, okay, you know what, let's certify this thing except for these things, because I think it's going to be just as punitive to us from the legislative standpoint if we don't do what they told us to do. Although I don't know. The question that I continue to ask is what does the legislature do to you when they pass a law and you don't do what they tell you to do. I mean, I don't know what's ever happened to the city of Austin. I mean, when they say do this, I mean, because obviously what they have is they have some endless pit of money that they just, you know, tie it into litigation and continue to what I consider to be object steu nature. So -- but I'm willg to listen to what our legal arguments are, but I don't want us to think that, you know what, we're going to be okay. We're going to show the legislature that we've done what we needed to do, knowing that we haven't really complied with the real letter. So -- thank you, judge.
>> okay. Anything else right now? We'll get further legal advice in executive session. My one question, I guess, is whatever action we take here, don't we need a document that evidences it as well as the reasons why? That is a legal question too, tom, I guess. We can discuss further this afternoon. Or late this morning.
Last Modified: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:18 AM