Travis County Commssioners Court
June 1, 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 19
Number 19 y'all. 19. Receive and take appropriate action on city of Austin and Travis County efforts to implement hb 1445 for the review and inspection of subdivisions in the extraterritorial jurisdiction. Mr. Gieselman.
>> yes. The -- the subcommittee appointed by the Commissioners court and the city council met twice along with the staff's -- along with the staffs of the county and the city. Our focus was --
>> and councilmembers goodman and slusher.
>> slusher. And judge Biscoe and Commissioner Daugherty from the county. Our focus was elimination of the duplication that was outlined in the deloitte study of our combined process. As you know, house bill 1445 and 1207 had given us several options on how to reduce the -- the overlap of subdivision review and inspection within the e.t.j. So we have been -- we have made quite a bit of progress since those bills were passed. We now have an interlocal agreement that sets up a signal office. We have a sirng gel code, only one development -- a single code, only one development code. Despite of that we still have overlap of what actually transpires in a single office. So it was the focus of the subcommittee to find ways to eliminate that duplication under ultimately [indiscernible] for subdivision review and inspection that also was not duplicative. We had each entity had their own alternatives on how to do that. Those were discussed by the subcommittee. But at the end of the day there was yet another alternative that was chosen, that was one offered by councilmember goodman. For lack of a better word we used a collaborative model. That was we would maintain a single office that did not duplicate a level of effort. Which made getting into the actual functions and deciding which entity would review what function of the subdivision plat. We decided to set up teams, interagency, interdisciplinary teams. The team leader would be assigned by the city if the subdivision plat was in the drinking water protection zone. Which was one of the primary business interests of the city. The team leader of the case manager -- or the case manager would be assigned by the county in the desired development zone. That -- those two areas basically divide the county into two major portions. The western portion being the drinking water protection zone, the eastern portion being the desired development zone. [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> ... The county would be the lead reviewer for the subdivision plat in those functional areas. With drainage, if it was a regional storm water program, the city would also be the radio viewer for that function. Otherwise it would be the county. So we pretty much parched out what the county and city were and divided the team accordingly. The -- all of this applies to the area of the e.t.j. Outside of the [indiscernible] annexation. We had already conceded to the city a near-term annexation on the principle that if we were going to take over and annex these areas within a short period of time, roughly, three years, then we had the major stake on how the subdivisions and that infrastructure was platted. The city will take full responsibility for the near-term annexation areas. For the areas outside of that, which aren't like whether I to be annexed -- likely to be annexed certainly within three years and sometimes up to decades, the county has a much greater role and stake in that infrastructure that is being built by the subdivider. Especially in the areas of drainage and transportation. In this model, we also -- the city decided the county will have the city do all the inspections. When we got down to the inspection part of it, it's somewhat more difficult to divide up the functions. Quite frankly, when the inspector goes out there to look at the utility trench, he's just as interested in the compaction of that trench for roadway purposes as he is for the utility. So at that point we decided the city would do all the inspections, the field inspections from a to z. They would make sure that the product, the construction plans as they were approved by the city and the county, were done according to plans. The county, on the other hand, would do quality assessment and quality control. By looking over the logs of the city inspectors and by looking at the tests that are performed for compaction to ayes sure ourselves that we have somewhat audited the city inspectors and found in fact these are being done according to specifications. We also held the responsibility of releasing the fiscal on the transportation and drainage. So we don't let go of the fiscal security until we're assured that the inspection has been done according to specifications. So we're given some security, so to speak, to make sure that things haven't gotten done beyond our control. And we also want a copy of the as built. Typical as things are under construction, some things change in the field. We want to make sure that at the end of the construction period we have the set of plans that are up to date on what actually got built because this is what the county will maintain after that one-year warranty period. So this is the model. Now, we have agreed, based on the division of labor, that the subcommittee approved, that we would go back and develop a phase schedule that reflected that division of labor. The city did not agree to do a joint study of the fee. They feel that their basis for fee is the general fund, and we are [indiscernible] a cost recovery model at the county w that said, we will both go and evaluate what it will cost us to do our business as modeled by this division of labor. And we will come forward with the resources the county needs to perform our role and at our cost recovery fee. The city will also look at how it is to do business under this model and structure its fee also according to its model of general fund recovery. And that will be the fee levied by a single office for the review and inspection of subdivisions within the e.t.j.
>> we said there would be like a little demonstration, right?
>> right.
>> two service areas. And the city would basically indicate what it would charge and why, and to the extent that the county would have a charge, we would indicate what we would charge and why also.
>> that's right.
>> so as sort of examples of here's what we would do. And that -- the thinking being that if we could do it in-house, we could save the money. But if we could not demonstrate the capability to do it in-house, then, in my view, that makes a bigger case, better case for contracting out. We certainly would have those two service areas at the next meeting, right?
>> you said two weeks.
>> from the last meeting.
>> yeah.
>> that's next week.
>> that's pretty aggressive, but that's what the charge is.
>> was there a [indiscernible] working toward this? I know we haven't set the fee schedule yet, but from what I知 hearing, but in some way, shape, form or fashion, especially in these tough budget and economic times, you will have to have enough funds revenue generating things, we can't afford basically not to lose revenue, and I知 quite sure the city is in the same boat as we are. And I guess in this division of labor, even though this is a model, and we haven't gotten there yet, but I知 still concerned that we do not lose revenue. That we have collected in the past and that's my concern. You know, coming from the general fund. [indiscernible] and that's my still concern. And so I don't know if we are having to really give up anything. I guess it's too early to tell because we haven't gone through the functional process yet as far as the division of labor and also the sharing of fees. But I知 still concerned about that. And we haven't gotten there yet, but it just kind of -- I don't know, a bad forecast where we actually end up losing, get the short end of the stick and we end up losing revenue.
>> I don't know what the revenue forecast is relative to what we're receiving at the current time, but the fee is intended to be full cost recovery.
>> okay.
>> and what it cost us, and it may go up or down, I don't know that at this point until we map out what it's going to take for us to do this work.
>> right.
>> but whatever that is, our fees are going to be set in such a way as to recover the full cost of that.
>> okay.
>> joe, a couple of -- I知 sorry if these are elemental questions. In terms of the drinking water protection zone versus the desired development zone, is everything either one or the other?
>> yes.
>> okay. Related to the inspectors, since everything would be dependent upon the city, what are we going to have related to i'll call them service -- a service agreement in terms of how -- are we also going to be locking in how timely those inspections will occur? My concern is there have been cuts over at the city of Austin in that division and we need to make sure we still have timely service and not simply, well, we just throw it over to their end. How do we ensure the timeliness of all inspections because things can get hung up over there?
>> the subcommittee did not address that issue, but that's certainly something we could look into.
>> the second thing, what if you've got a situation of a plat coming through within the drinking water protection zone and balancing what our requirements are under elgin versus dealing with something that large any in terms of the case manager is in the hands of the city of Austin? How do we balance the differing legal requirements of what we must do within 30 days versus what they may do within 30 days?
>> I think the interlocal agreement right now is already sensitive to the timing issue. We haven't -- the laws haven't changed. We have to meet the standards no matter where they are. So I think irregardless of what [indiscernible] this does, I think our current agreement is we have to meet the statutory requirements for the timeliness of the reviews.
>> help me recall what's going on with the ossf. My recollection is we're doing everything outside the city of Austin, but not the city of Austin. How is that going to be handled in terms of septic within the city? Granted there's not very much, but with their annexation of some of the more outward areas, do we pick up any on-site sewage?
>> inside the city? No, we don't.
>> so they will specifically handle that.
>> that's correct.
>> help me understand related to the appointment of a -- what are you calling it, a manager? Here we go.
>> director of the office.
>> no, no, no, this is the one in terms of the -- case manager. Okay. The case manager, depending on if it's drinking water protection or desired development zone will either be city of Austin or Travis County person. What about the functions underneath that? Let's say transportation issues within the desired development zone. How is that handled? Is it the transportation piece would be handled by the county?
>> yes.
>> the key case manager would be the city in terms of moving the project along.
>> we look at the case manager with different roles. The case manager will be doing the general review for general plat requirements. There will also be the team coordinator. There will be the point of contact for the applicant to make sure all the comments no matter where they come from get back in a single form to the applicant. And then finally if there is a conflict among the review comments, this person is responsible for either resolving the conflicts or calling in to motion the conflict resolution process that is currently in our interlocal agreement. If we have some conflict that cannot be resolved within the team that gets kicked up to the next level until it's resolved.
>> have you fleshed out any more related to the director of the single office? Is this somebody that already exists?
>> could. I think this was something I personally put into the mix because I think it's important for the county to have a full role in how that office is managed. The site itself is down at the city in one Texas center, which is not bad. They are right now consolidating all of their reviews into one-stop shop at the city. No matter what kind of development you have, you are going to find it at one Texas center. So they are physically going to -- through a lot of changes at the city at this point. And their staffs are going to be much larger than ours, so it made sense for that to be the one-stop shop for the e.t.j. As well. But we agreed that the dynamics of the single office are those important for the county to have as much stake in the management of that office as the city does. And initially we talked about rotating the directorship between the city and the county every other year. And that's got problems in and of itself. But it's the notion that the director of the office is accountable not only to the county Commissioners court but to the city council or to the zoning and planning commission. And that we should not only have a hand in the appointment of that person but also in paying the salary for that person which should be recovered out of the fees for subdivision review. So I just thought at that point we needed someone that both the city and the county had a hand because this portion is going to be very important to how the things flow, actually flow through the single office. And we didn't want to be at a disadvantage at how that single office was managed.
>> I don't disagree with you, but having gone through this on some things in terms of joint appointments, e.m.s., We're so bless to do have dr. Ed rock, but the reality is he is a city of Austin employee and not hired by Travis County. We don't even have like a veto yes we do pay 40% of his salary, but we need to make sure we talk through that and when we say the city and the county, what we really mean is that's an appointment of the city manager. That would not be a council appointment unless you change -- yeah.
>> I知 looking for equity however that's done.
>> not a problem. And also, my final question, have we gotten any kind of feedback from any or all of the stake hold thaers have been a part of this process?
>> the stakeholders were at all of the subcommittee meetings. I've not gotten back any direct response from this proposal that the committee adopted this last meeting, so I cannot tell you at this point how the stakeholders feel about this.
>> how do we ensure that we do get back feedback from them in a more organized way?
>> we can send out a --
>> I do think we ought to have a short meeting and get their input.
>> they've gone this far.
>> I think they have been there, but that's not quite the same as sitting with them and seeing what feedback if any they would v the only thing I would add is what is clear is that the model we were working on from those four options will not -- eliminate duplication the city was not coming around. What became clear is that either we do it this way or we don't get it done. And so at the end of the first meeting, I think it was my point that we tell them we'll work on this and if this fails, then we'll just go into arbitration. Because it was clear if we continued discussing the model we had been working on, we would not make any satisfactory progress.
>> is the thought you would almost get like an itemized hotel bill in terms of what the fee is supposed to be? You would know what your bottom line dollar is, but it would have a breakoutof case manager, city versus county in terms of who every receives the money sends the split out?
>> my view was if you put the service down there and there are seven things that must be done to get it done, each of those seven would be like a fee associated with it and the city [indiscernible]. What they would like to do is give a bomb line number. And I guess -- bottom line number. And I guess if you end up with the same number that wouldn't matter because focusing on the seven specific tasks that you have to do, you just indicate this service will cost you x amount of money and I guess you could back into it. So I -- they would give a number for the service and we would do the same. My thinking too -- I mean if you arrived at the number for the service, then somewhere you have specific amounts for each task. See what I知 saying?
>> I guess my concern is I don't want to get lumped in with the city deciding this is a cost recovery beyond the cost.
>> no, we would have our own deal. Now, what they would have would be their cost. That was clear too. They indicated they are not on a fee for service model as we said we were. And they talked about the general fund --
>> they are trying to think of it as a [indiscernible]. But I just want to make sure while we have always made ours be a what does it cost to provide to service, we don't know if they are going to build any kind of money-making recovery and I don't want to get lumped in there's the final bill -- it's almost like the Travis County appraisal district, travis central appraisal district sending it out and all anybody sees is this is the bottom line and they blame the county as opposed to its extraordinarily itemized --
>> the county would take care of the county's part and the city would take care of the city's part. And Commissioner Daugherty and I i guess are not stating -- if I知 not stating his position incorrectly, what it was year the city would -- we left insisting that the county charge the county's fee.
>> I知 okay with that.
>> but we seemed to agree that we would not charge stakeholders for two fees. So if the county on its own decided to reinspect notwithstanding a city initial inspection, we will do so at our cost. Taken same is true for the city. So if we go to perform one of these tasks and the city doesn't like how we did it and the city says we'll do that, they are not supposed to charge the stakeholder for that if it's one of our areas. Is that right, joe? That is a challenge.
>> that is correct. But I must add that we are approaching the fee from two different methodologies. That would be somewhat like blending apples and oranges. It's not going to be an itemized -- the county will be more itemized. We expect ours to be based on activity so we can tell you exactly what the labor content is and direct charges of every one of the people and what they are doing in the process that add up to that fee. The city, on the other hand, is going to have a general fund. It's made up of a department of so many people, taken fee is going to match that. So you will not be able to get underneath the fee and actually see what are the contributing portions of the fee.
>> I知 willing to stay out of the city's business related to what it is they charge. I just do not want to be lumped in that somebody sees the bottom line dollar and goes, whoa, what is this, in terms of we're accountable for our piece, the city is responsible for their piece. I just want to be able to have people tell what piece of that is money that's being forward odd to Travis County for services rendered.
>> should be able to do that.
>> that's a good point.
>> I don't care what they charge, but let it be very clear in terms of what their piece and what is our piece. How they get to what their number is, that is their business. How we get to our number is our business. But the consumer ought to know, well, this chunk of it was for services rendered by the city of Austin and this chunk of it is for services rendered by Travis County.
>> that's the agreement.
>> okay.
>> whether or not in fact we accomplish that is --
>> I just don't want to see that there is a services owed and there is one number -- I want transparency, and they can, you know, take whatever kind of, you know, criticism, comments, whatever related to what their piece is. But there's got to be transparency related to who's charging what because certainly the auditor is going to be asking that question, how much of these dollars are coming into Travis County. So we'll be able to back it out --
>> besides, with getting deloitte touche to show us how to get separation.
>> judge, did you -- you mentioned arbitration earlier. And I guess you also -- another meeting with the stakeholder and also another meeting with I guess the city council persons within a certain time frame. Let's look at the other side. Let's say that nothing -- let's say that we end up going into arbitration because we just couldn't work things out. Let's say the stakeholders -- I don't know. But let's just look at the other side. If -- how would it affect, I guess -- I need to ask joe this question. If we know we're going to get full recovery, how would this affect our budget psych they will year if we're not able to satisfy the confines within h.b. 1445 in a timely fashion? In other words, what happens if all of this we're talking about just don't come to pass? And arbitration is invoked. For this fiscal year cycle that we're coming into, '05. Is there anything -- could someone answer that question for me?
>> you know, I can't answer that question. If we don't have a final settlement and we go to binding arbitration, I don't know what the outcome of that binding arbitration may be. So I can't forecast at this point what we do with our fees.
>> right.
>> or what the fees or revenue might come from those fees. I mean basically status quo. We continue to charge what we're charging. And to that extent, I can predict what our revenues will be.
>> okay.
>> I don't know what the revenues might be if we go to binding arbitration. I don't.
>> logically if you [indiscernible] duplication we ought to do less work. It would seem to me there's no reason to think we would need more.
>> yes, there is. With this division of labor, we may actually take on more responsibility. I mean we're picking up transportation and drainage for the entire county.
>> then we ought to be able to charge more fees.
>> that's right.
>> if we do the works, we charge more fees.
>> that's right.
>> so the more work we do, the more fee we charge. The stakeholder ought to be able to see I知 paying a fee for this service to this entity because this entity provides the service. And they are not supposed to see an invoice that leads them to the conclusion that we both performed the Sam service and therefore we charged two fees. That's what we're trying to get away from. In the end it seems to me even if we agree to this model, it would take a few months of implementation to really see a real-life effect.
>> yeah. The least we could do is go back so many number of years and make what will happen under this model based to number of plats that have come in by the drinking water protection zone and the desired development zone. And we're going full transportation review. We're going to have to do a little estimating.
>> more litigation and -- or legislation, it seems to me this was a model we should turn to to try to work on, and I really think that in terms of meetings, the city has come to the table in good faith. With two assistant managers there, two members of the city council, and, you know, their responses were as positive and optimistic as ours, in my view. At the same time, I appreciate that in the end, you know, the proof is in the pudding and you get out there and implement it over a 90-day period and you see precisely what have you and the stakeholders have to see that too. So I would think that stakeholders are saying let's get something in place implemented so we will -- when we put our legislative agenda together in the fall in preparation for the, you know, mid-january arrival of the legislature, they would want to know basically whether to go back over and ask for something specific or whether they can go back over and say we've been taken care of or whether it's just the fees.
>> I think this is a great step forward in the sense that the things that we really basically said were kind of like this is backed newspaper the audit in terms of what are our responsibilities in terms of flood water, transportation and county responsibility. They just flat are. And that is still protected within this plan, and I think it validates what we've been setting all along in terms of what we can see there's certain things you do. You are the environmental folks, you are the utility folks, but by golly, transportation, unless it's in the near-term annexation area is something the county is going to have to live with because some of these subdivisions that are coming through, these plats have been coming through 20, 25 years and the city isn't even close to annexing those roads so they are a core Travis County responsibility until the city chooses to annex them them. Or another city chooses to annex them.
>> I think we can carry this item on the agenda I guess week to week until we get it done.
>> let me put it on when we're ready to bring the fee back.
>> I think we need to meet with the stakeholders this week. They have been there so I don't know that a long meeting is necessary, but I have no way of knowing whether -- they seem to be generally supportive. So if my reading on that is correct, I would think that a 15 or 20-minute discussion may be all it takes. And I would be happy to sit in on that if you want me to.
>> all right. I'll set it up.
>> let's have that back on next week and if we don't need it, then we'll just postpone action. Anything further on this item today? It really was to give us an update and get some feedback from the court. There are a couple of issues that we need to follow through on. [indiscernible] today's discussion. Thanks, joe.
Last Modified: Wednesday, June 2, 2004 7:47 AM