Travis County Commissioners Court
November 9, 2004
Item 37
37 is to consider and take appropriate action on the following: a, appoint
members to the citizens bond advisory committee; and b, draft charter for
the citizens bond advisory committee. B is what we discussed today, right?
>> yes. I drafted a chart which is modeled after the one
down in 2001 with the issue of number 6 on the jail issue. So that this would
serve kind of as a starting point. There are some blanks in the draft order.
There may be other things you want to do with this with regard to enabling
your committee or restricting your committee, either one. For instance, on
number -- well, let's see, there's a typo here. There's two number 6s on the
chart. The second number 6 or number 7 is the amount of the bond program.
In 2001, you limited the amount to be considered by the committee to $80 million.
Now that ultimately came $184 million program. But I think it is, from my
perspective, helpful to know how much debt the county is going to entertain
early on in the process so that there's some constraint, that we just don't
go out and start looking at hundreds of millions of dollars, that we know
from the very beginning that for one reason or another the county will only
consider so much. And it helps to discipline the process a little bit more.
>> I recall they took our advice the last time, didn't they?
>> actually they did. There were a couple of oppositions
that really took it over and you may recall we [indiscernible] highway 130
just in and of itself. So that was an unusual circumstance. I don't know if
that will be repeated this time around. I guess the issue of whether or not
you would include right-of-way for state facilities would be something you
should consider at this part whether or not to do that. The landscape has
changed quite a bit since 2001. We now have a central Texas regional mobility
authority. And most of the new highway improvements will be done with toll
roads. Including the acquisition of right-of-way. So it may not be necessary
on our part to [indiscernible] if the amount of money we did in 2001. That's
not to say there won't be other state highways that will be asked to participate
in because of farm to market roads that are not under consideration of the
toll roads, so that is something to be considered, whether you would want
that as part of the charter or not. There's no lack of capital for [indiscernible]
both from facilities, jails, roads, parks, preserves, and so I think you really
as a court ought to establish the character of the bond program. How wide
open and just what do you want to solve with this election. Is it jails and
roads, is it jails and facilities and courthouses, I mean the mix of improvements
that you would like to tackle this time around, I think this is the place
where you want to instruct your committee on their direction so that you are
clear with them and they don't go off on some wild tank epbts.
>> we've got some comments from christian and some of the
I agreed with and some of them I disagreed with. But the ones I agreed with
him on, I thought it was a relevant thing under number 3 to talk about operating
costs for each project because that seems to be something that keeps coming
back of it isn't just about the debt, it is also about the implications for
the future related to operating costs. And I think that ought to be something
that's just out there that they take a look at, but that seems to be nicely
placed under number 3. The idea of having status reports, putting some sort
of reporting mechanism of some sort in here I also thought was a really good
suggestion. I disagreed with the one about having this committee schedule
how the individual projects will lay out because, quite frankly, I think our
own staff is going to have a better sense of some timing issues as opposed
to a committee that has a very limited scope. But the other thing is with
all good intentions, sometimes things just move around and it's beyond our
control. I know I thought that wells branch would have been one of the first
things out the door and things happened in between. I thought we would have
a southwest metro park location by now, but didn't work out that way. And
other things that were at the end got moved up. So, to me, I think that ought
to be the business and work of the court to work on a scheduling and issue
a schedule and what goes first because I think we will have a better sense
of priorities and kind of the balance of making sure that, you know, not one
precinct is getting all the projects to the deathment of another precinct.
We need to have a -- detriment. In terms of scheduling to make sure getting
all of our projects moving forward. And I agreed about don't use the words
"regional mobility."
>> would anyone from the court like to work with christian
and joe to try to put this charter close to final shape by November 23rd?
In my view. We have all of tomorrow afternoon locked up and Thursday is veterans
day. I don't see us getting it done by Tuesday without spending quite a bit
of work on it. The other question is do we want to get each member of the
court signed up for one of these or do we want to select 10 and give each
court member three.
>> for me, judge, it depends on the size of the package and
so I’m almost tempted to say I need to know how much debt can we afford. And
that kind of tells me I need to work back from that.
>> that's what I have in mind. That's what it will be in
what we look at on the 23rd. The other thing is no matter how many we afford,
whether it's three or five, -- appointed, I think we need to get some kind
of background represented. We don't want to pick 15 or 25 people with the
same background.
>> of those same folks, the last time we did this in 2001
--
>> some might, some may not.
>> might be good to know if there's some still around from
the list we had before. I think they did a good job, in my opinion.
>> judge, I don't mind working on this, but I am limited
on the days I can work on it.
>> this isn't for next Tuesday.
>> right.
>> do have a list from the last time?
>> I can get that, yes.
>> and also, you know, if we come to a presumption the only
thing we can do in the forward is jails, then we can meet a smaller committee.
But if we say no, we need to look at jails, the courthouse, roads, and all
of a sudden to fairly divide up the work because those are such different
tasks, you are better to have a transportation and natural resources group,
a facilities group looking at the courthouse, and a jail group.
>> Commissioner Gomez has volunteered.
>> I will volunteer.
>> are you going to bring an aforwardability issue?
>> definitely.
>> because how much can we afford to approve if there is
a phaofp to approve anything.
>> and what is the cost of not doing it.
>> exactly.
>> Sonleitner, geiselman, smith and Gomez. Sonleitner, Gomez,
geiselman, smith, trumble.
>> and wilson.
>> do you want to be on? And perez. A good idea because we've
got people volunteering. That's six people. That's a nice round number.
>> two weeks?
>> right. November 23rd. I’m thinking that this week is almost
gone, so ...
>> okay.
>> anything else, joe?
>> no.
>> and judge, related to the people to appoint, are we making
a presumption it's five or some other number? Because quite frankly, it --
>> I would just think --
>> we're already circulating names in our office to say who
do we think might be a good fit for this. But we're more limited to three.
>> I would think that if I were doing it and I wanted to
make sure that I had nine or ten people --
>> outstanding.
>> -- from a certain background, I would want to appoint
them off the top and then give individual members of the court. Three people
is a lot to appoint. This commitment really can be labor intensive for three,
four, five months it starts off slowly, then it kind of builds. Whatever deadline
we self-impose, my guess is really, what, 60, 90 days before that deadline
is probably when the bulk of the real serious work is done. Last time we had
the committee doing public hearings and getting ready for them, going through
them. Summarizing notes, even with staff help with sort of agonizing. So I
guess I’m open out. I just think we ought to think through it.
>> right.
>> work with these.
>> right. Okay, so we'll be back on the 23rd of November
on that one.
>> joe, you will have the list by that time, right? From
the previous members serving on the advisory committee?
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.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, October 26, 2005 3:17 PM