Travis County Commssioners Court
June 29, 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 22
22 is consider 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 including necessity for any adjustments to f.y. '05.
>> one of the major issues that we wanted, the city's next subcommittee meeting is supposedly the 12th right now. And we have not yet finalized their fees with our fees or combined them. We have both done a review of two plats that were selected to see before and after. We've been working with them on the process mapping to make sure that we're particularly in sync with the case manager's position and what that function will do. The other one is our auditors are working with us to work on the process of how it flows within the single office when a plat comes in because there are issues between what is happening there now and what should be happening. So we wanted to make sure those are in sync. We've done our processes and we have costed them based on our processes, but what we have several policy issues that need to be addressed and I will bring this forward again next week with a detailed memo of what they are. In the meantime, I'm going to ask you think about those things. One of the major issues is do you want to collect 100% of full costs recovery of the fees. Without having knowing what the fees are, it's difficult to tell you. I know what they are, but I have not shared it with anybody because we have not finalized the combined fees with the city. There are issues because what we had before, what we do now is collect about 80% of direct costs. Salaries associated with those individuals that work subdivision. When you do full costs, it's 100% of the direct costs plus indirect costs which includes legal. Admin, support on those issues. That's one of the major issues. The other one is do you want to have director of single office whereby the city pays 50% of that position and we pay 50% ofthe position. That position would function as the intermediary to the decisions between the case managers when they are working different cases that affect the city and/or the county. So that those individuals will go to that person to get clarity and decision made before you go back up to joe and/or laura.
>> under who? The city or the county now?
>> and that has not worked out.
>> in other words, who would be the person [indiscernible].
>> that, I don't know. Right now the single office is at the city, and who they would be [indiscernible] by both functions and who they would report to is part of the issue that needs to be sought through and what we need to do in those situations. In that situation.
>> all right.
>> one of the other policy issues, and I'm trying to find my notes here, is the -- the proposal in chapter 340. Apter 30. We have not heard from the city so I don't know if they accepted what we sent down last week. We approved here the changes in the code and we have heard nothing. I'm assuming we'll hear from them before we get to subcommittee meeting on the 12th. The other issue, one of the other issues is how we handle cases that are managed by the city. The case manager is the city. And the issue is something that we need to discuss here. Which means do they come and make the presentation here and how do we handle that. Those issues have not been worked out. The city works the other way. When we have one where it's in our desired drinking water do we then participate in zoning and planning meets r meetings and all those issues associated with putting on agenda on the city council. Same thing for them when they come here. So those are some of the major issues that we have lined out.
>> we ought to see what 100% reimbursement looks like. And we [indiscernible] today.
>> I have that.
>> and so in the end we can look at those two and figure out where to land. I think our goal ought to be 100% reimbursement. What you may want to do is 100% reimbursement of direct costs, then 100% reimbursement of direct costs plus indirect.
>> I know to make the decision is kind of hard because we are also proposing -- after we detail the process, we realize they will be short staffed and we're proposing four additional staff which would be recovered in the cost of the fees from the -- from the fees, the revenues associated with subdivision. So -- and we are at -- we are proposing to add an additional fee of $4 for public notices because part of this whole issue is to send out public notices to keep in snyc with what the city does and if we do that there's a $4 post office fee and that's extra. So I will line that out. I will also put back in the fees and I could show you the total dollar revenue difference versus the individual fee costs if you wanted to see it that way. I didn't know that you would want to see the individual costs. We have additional fees because it will be in the desired development zone -- in the drinking water desired zone and then the water protection zone. Those two zones with or without rsmp so it's four new fees. And then you have outside the city of Austin e.t.j. So you will have five. There will be a little different than what you normally see before which we just had preliminary plan and final plan and those different fees.
>> I think the thing I want to avoid is the idea that somehow there's a sticker shock. I think folks are already used to the fact that we're like 80% there. So if there is a number that is really out there simply because we decide to go with a different kind of a formula, no matter how much that we can justify it, it almost might be that we get the same place or at least from my point of view like we did on the parcel rate on taxes, that may be the number, but you work on narrowing the gap so that as we are going to be for this year we've got rid of the gap related to a full cost of recovery related to the parcel rate. The other thing that I just want to make sure is that we get to a place that we know what it is, we also know that that is something that we can send with certainty over to blaine and carolyn for certification. Because if we are talking about needing to do new people, we absolutely are going to be wanting to have that backed up with certifiable revenue so that makes it a very easy decision during the budget process as opposed to a hard decision.
>> absolutely. We -- what we were doing is using the volumes that we used for this fiscal year to project if you had the same volumes next year, what would that revenue be. And we've done that. We're also working with the auditors to review our process to make sure, and they are also right now looking at our calculations to make sure that how we developed our direct costs and our indirect costs is logical, auditable outside step. We're there. We've done all the process mapping except for the one of the office of the plat comes in in this office and what happens in the office and next week when anna comes back we will sit with the auditors and the city of Austin and get that finished. We've already calculated our fees. We know what that impact is and I could tell you it is drastic. Just from what I know right this minute, it is much higher than you've seen before. So it is going to be a sticker shock to use your words, Commissioner. So I will show you that. I could detail that and give you all the details in next week's agenda.
>> okay.
>> if you want to see that before we present it to the committee. I didn't know whether you wanted to do that before we presented it to the subcommittee.
>> judge, part of my apprehension about talking openly the other day in the subcommittee meeting when we were with the councilmembers, you know, even though this 1445 thing is not all about fees, I mean I really think that from the outset the industry were really more concerned about, you know, being bounced from, you know, one place to the other. But I -- I do think that we -- that we really need to consider what our stance is going to be if carol, what you say is you -- true. There could be some real shock here because most people would think if you are going to consolidate, that consolidation means there is some economies of scale, and I think that we are -- we're fixing to have some real disgruntled people. Now, that -- you know, if we're trying to recapture, you know, our costs, then we're trying to recapture our costs. But that's going to be something that we're going to have to really stand our ground because I do not think that the city -- and I think the city has made it fairly clear to us from the get-go, they don't really, you know, want you to know how they set their fee structure, and the truth of the matter is that i've even agreed in the subcommittee meeting, I mean it's not -- as a Commissioner, I'm not, you know, to tell you how you are supposed to recapture all of your costs. But I mean I just hope that we haven't done all of this stuff only for these stakeholders to come in and go, mercy, we would have been better off not going after 1445. Because there are still issues that we're wrestling with. I don't get exactly who is the fiscal agent and the inspection and how that's done and really how the moneys are held and released and who really gets to call, you know, all of the final shots. I mean knowing and having done some projects with the city, I mean that's where they really can play, you know, pretty big hard ball with you. And so I mean I'm not saying that we shouldn't find out what our costs recovery is because, you know, that is going to be what it is, but, you know, we need to be aware that if we come out and this thing is extraordinarily higher than what it was before we did 1445, that we're going to have some issues.
>> I agree. We ought to look at the numbers and do the right thing.
>> but let's also not forget that the city of Austin has to do its piece here because it could be that if things are shifting over here it's because work has shifted over here and we have every expectation the too that if the work is being one time and it's being done here, that needs to be accommodated here. Because the reverse is we've gotten rid of the duplication, we've gotten rid of the duplication of fees and work, and we're subsidizing the city of Austin development process. And that's not fair.
>> no, it's not.
>> that's the other piece of this equation is that if ours is going up, one would think theirs would be going down.
>> well, you would think, and that's the reason why i've always wondered why somebody wasn't just willing to come forth and tell us what, you know, the numbers. I mean they still haven't committed to the fact that, well, fees really aren't even part of 1445. Now, maybe it doesn't specifically say in there, but I think in a court of law you could say, well, I mean you certainly would have expected, tom, to think that fees were going to be something that the stakeholders were going to say, well, maybe we didn't just put tonight capitol let the record show and underline it three times, but we certainly --
>> as has been pointed out, you can, you know, debate the interpretation of the statute, but at the end of the day the city and the county agreed that fees were part of this because we put it in the interlocal that we would work on the fees. But what I was going to add was I recall from the discussions at the subcommittee the city recognized the fact that because of the division of the responsibility.
>> pweultsz, the county might be doing -- responsibilities, the county might be doing more and might need to recover that cost and at the same time the city might be doing less, but they didn't really want to lose the expertise on staff, and the net result was, what I understood them to say was they would keep those people on staff, but they basically wouldn't pay for them with fees. They would basically subsidize it with general fund, meaning they would basically lower their fees, but if there was people on staff that they didn't want to lose, they would subsidize their salaries out of general fund.
>> then it will be real interesting to see this comparison of the before and the after because I think that's going to tell us.
>> yeah, because we can't add four new people because of the workload related to four new people and somehow think that we're not going to be able to recover some of those costs. And workload is going to be relieved someplace else and we have to success it up. It's -- suck it up.
>> bring it back.
>> and I will bring back the plats and everything. I just didn't know what --
>> thanks, carol.
>> our next meeting is before the meeting with the city.
>> right. The final notice, by the way, is the 12th on a Monday, and it's either 11:00 or 1:00. And I haven't heard which. And are you available on Monday, the 12th, do you know?
>> the 12th is a big day in town. Most of us will be here.
>> really? I hadn't heard.
Last Modified: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 9:28 AM