Travis County Commissioners Court
August 8, 2006
Item 29
Number 29 is to consider and take appropriate action on the following issues involving the central Texas regional mobility authority. A, designate terms of directorrers and b, approve appointment process for new board member. And we do have the representatives from the regional mobility authority with us. Director hilgenstein. Last week we did vote to post the vacancy that dr. Zumed left with her resignation.
>> good morning, judge and Commissioners. What we need this morning is the redesignation of the two remaining members if you so chose. Board member lowell lebberman. They were reappointed to two year terms. The statute now as statuted requires staggered terms, which is difficult to do when all six of the position vz two-year term. So what we're suggesting is that travis is a appoint two to a two year term and one to a one-year term. And Williamson will appoint two to a one-year term and two to a two year term.
>> would you restate that about Travis County?
>> Travis County, you have six members on the board, and they need to be staggered terms. And they're seen as a whole. So you need three two-year terms, three one-year terms. Since the chair is from Williamson county, it is suggested that travis receive two, two year terms and Williamson receive two one year terms. That is required under statute. These appointments should actually begin in February of '06. As a formal commencement. And if you name two, two years today, they would go obviously to February of '08. Both mr. Lebberman and mr. Gillmore have indicated they would like to do one more term.
>> so the next person would automatically be one year.
>> obviously that's your call.
>> but farce what you've suggested,, as far as what the two Commissioners would have, they would like other terms and they are current.
>> so the other person would be the one year. 'And then they would all be two year after that. So every year you would have appointments.
>> ms. Joseph?
>> all I sent to you before was the packet that we handed out in the first -- when we first appointed the first three as to how you would go about accepting that application, giving out applications as well as during the interview process. And I suggested how do you that and it was the same process you used last time and it's up to you to change or add or delete or whatever. He's right in terms of the statutes. What I thought initially is it was just the three that you appointed, but it is a staggered term for the entire body, not just the three that you appointed. So that would be the best way to stagger it is since way to stagger it is since two is already orks the new person would get the one year as much as they're willing to do the two years.
>> these two have good attendance appeared good participation?
>> yes, sir. And they have a senseibility of the bond markets, which is be greatly appreciated.
>> questions from the court? Commissioner Daugherty? He.
>> tell me, if you appoint a member, is there a mechanism by which you ask somebody to step down -- here's what I'm getting at. We are about -- we may be about to extend a couple of people's terms starting in 2006. No one in this county questions the trors that we have had over the toll plan. Let's say that we make these appointments for 2006, and I'm happy that we've got a couple of people that are willing to step up to the line for two more years, but let's say that we, quite frankly, have to sit dowp with our board members and this court questions whether or not the board members that we have agree with this court with regards to what needs to happen. You don't really want to fly in the face of people that appoint you, but you would like to think that you've got board members that are independent enough to do the job that they think they need to do '. What do we have opportunity wise if we say, you know, you're really not in step with the court? And I'm not real sure that we need for you to stay as one of our appointments. Once you make a two-year appointment, is that for good in do you not have the ability to say, maybe we ought to replace you?
>> mike could probably speak more to it. My vex that the bylaws have a section in there to which they could -- any courts could eliminate any one person or ask them to step down. I think it's written -- I don't have the bylaws in frnt of me.
>> the reason I ask that is because I know that esd's, once you appoint an esd Commissioner, you don't really have the ability to say, do you know what, you've flunk in the face of what we want to you do and we're going replace you. Once you make the appointment, they're there. It doesn't make any difference whether they get along or in the.
>> Commissioner, I think that's the case here. My recollection of the statute is once they're appointed for two years, you can't remove them simply for policy renz. There's a whole host of statutes for board members that deal with those issues, but the type of issue you're talking about is not a grounds for removal. What you have to address the issue you're talking about is an incredibly short-term, two years. Most boards in Texas are six years. To deal with your issue, what the legislature created was a two-year term.
>> let's hope they would do the honorable thing and step down f they don't agree --
>> Commissioner, let me also, to his point, particularly when you're dealing with bond indealtedness, if you had that kind of policy of disagreeing with someone politically or something, I think it would be difficult going to bond markets with any kind of sense of stability. If they voted the wrong way, we're going to jerk you right out of there. So I think that independence is critical for that reason. Also, I wanted to let you know that either one of these two would serve one year or two years. That's your call. They both said that I will serve at the pleasure of this court. They understand that they're your appointment.
>> the reason I bring that up, we prebl need to are -- probably need to have some sort of meeting as a court with all our appointments. We only have two there now, but quite frankly, I do think there is some feeling on this court about the direction that the rma, the decisions that the rma is continuously having to make. I do think it would be wise on our part to sit down with our board members and say walk us through what your attitude and your understands are. I do grearks I think when a bond issuance standpoint, you probably have folks up there that say we don't want you to have issues with your people if you appoint them. I think it would be wise for us to sit down with at least the two that we're going to reappoint and just say, run this by us as to how you see all of this stuff unfolding because every month when we go to campo, all of us are in the crosshairs of this community with regards to what are we going do with the toll plan. And I haven't met with lowell nor with henry to really know exactly where they stand with particular issues, but that may be a moot point.
>> we need board members that necessarily agree? Agree with putting tolls on existing roads? As tom instead sed, this is a policy thing. I'm in big opposition of putting tolls on existing roads. That's my argument. I could argue the same thing you're arguing that the board members that we're looking at need to conform to what my position is, and that's what you're looking for is the conformity here. And of course, when the bothers were selected and all of us here and board members were selected then at that time, we were looking at tolls, but none of them were controversial because we knew that it was new toll roads whereby we would be looking at funding them through toll proceeds; however, it has now gone to another phase. The other phase is the controversy that Commissioner Daugherty is bringing up. So that did pose maybe a concern for him, but it also pose as concern for me because, as I stated earlier when we first looked at this thing, it wasn't putting tolls on existing roads in Travis County. Now, that's changed, and of course campo will of course get involved with this as they have done, and also ctrma is still a part of that process also. But let me ask this question, tom, to you. The state legislature deemed it necessary to place an towm the constitutional amendment in November of last year, and if my recollection served me proper, it was to basically have the terms of the board members of the ctrma to be I think six-year terms. And I think the voters turned it down, is that correct? All right. So this is why we're here now today dealing with what we're doing otherwise, the voters, it would have been mandated they could have been having six year term , but we are now looking at two-year terms, which -- and let's face it, Commissioner Daugherty brought up a real good valid point. The person serves on the ctrma, some of the mandates will be directed through the campo and txdot to see exactly where the ctrma positions itself on the toll road controversy here in Travis County. So again, do we predicate it on what we all believe and stand for? I don't really know. But I do know that there is some controversy and it's not resolved at this point.
>> it's not like lilz. You will never be -- landfills, it will never be completely without controversy.
>> well, some of the landfills would not be gone if we had followed through on things.
>> I hear that.
>> on the issue of dpreaing agreeing with the court, this board cannot make any decisions that campo -- it's campo first and then in terms of any kind of toll policy, this board has to do -- yes. Soing you've got that safeguard. And our board has gone on record as opposed to tolling on existing roads.
>> I think the other thing I would throw in here is someone who tries to get to as many ctrma meetings as possible norkts all of them, but I try to get to at least 75% of them, there are other ways to figure out if our board and board members are reflecting the sensitivities of this jurisdiction. And that is to go see our folks in action. And so for me, it's not simply a matter of the policy of political considerations, but I am seeing month after month after month they're asking the kinds of questions that I want thoam have asked in relation to they have negotiated some amazing things in relation to noise walls and making neighborhoods happy. That's also a measure of how about a board is doing. What they're doing on land it scaping and aesthetics. How they really on adopted a policy related to utilization of hubs. That was one of the first things that got done because they kept hearing it from me saying you need to have your hub policy in place. I'm not going to have it just out there. And you need to are targets that you track every single month on where are we on hubs. Context sensitive to design and keeping an eye on the prize in terms of where are we on the particular project which right now is 183-a in terms of every single month they are measuring about eight different things in terms of how is this project proceeding along. To me those are also important validations, using judge dietz's word, on how are our board memberrings doing. I encourage folks to go visit our appointees and and out they're doing and it's not just about a particular road.
>> I move that we approve the recommended appointment process, but move for a new board member, and that is roughly the same as we did last time. We advertised the basically opportunity, we received applications, we short list those and the court interviews them in open court. That's the motion.
>> judge, does that include a date as to when we want these things turned in?
>> what I have in here is the 15th to the 25th because we used the 10-day period last time. We could change it.
>> I'm fine with that, I just want to make sure we say it out loud.
>> August 15th through the 25th, and the applications are received in the judge's office.
>> and historically this court has reserved the right to extend that deadline if we see fit.
>> certainly.
>> so if we think the pool is too small, we can easily add another 10 days, two weeks.
>> and judge, that is not specifically naming people to it.
>> that's my next motion, just the vacancy.
>> so just the one vacancy.
>> right. Discussion?
>> yeah, I need to --
>> all in favor? This is just the process for the appointment.
>> I understand. I still need to ask a question.
>> discussion? Go ahead.
>> thank you. Can you tell me this, mike, you mentioned that the board members within Travis County, which we have three, have taken a position opposing toll roads on existing roads. But we have seven board members. The other four with its relationship with Williamson county. The other four are within Williamson county. And can you tell me what their positions have been, Williamson county now, not travis, Williamson county, on tolls on existing roads?
>> they are opposed.
>> they are also opposed?
>> it was unanimous. And they were also unanimously in favor of adopting campo's recommendations. So they're all opposed.
>> which campo has taken a position, though, and that's -- and folks really need to understand this. You get your direction and your Marching orders from the campo board.
>> we can't do anything to any road unless campo approves it.
>> and that's part of the problem. Even though it's engraved in law, a big transportation deal, the way they've got that fixed it, it's going to be kind of hard for me to move it forward until we make some changes and make sure that we adhere to the will of the people, and that is to ensure that no poles on existing roads here -- no tolls on existing roads here on Travis County. I'm going abstain on this vote here.
>> any discussion of the motion? All in favor? Show Commissioners Sonleitner, Gomez, Daugherty, yours truly voting in fair. Abstaining Commissioner Davis. My next motion is that we des I guess knit the vacancy -- designate the vacancy as place number three appeared the two incumbent places as one and two. And the motion is that we designate one and two to be two-year terms and three to be a one-year term without addressing who fills them. So we will leave open whether or not we reappoint the two present members of the board and we'll just address that later on. Their terms expire February of 2007, so we have an opportunity to do that, but this motion basically is to make places one and two, currently occupied bianca by mr. Gilmore and mr. Lebberman. So if we don't reappoint them, we will appoint somebody else. And whoever replaces member zumed will have the one year term so. This doles with two-two year term slots more than anything else. Seconded by Commissioner Sonleitner. Any discussion of this motion?
>> let me make sure -- I understand what you said. They don't start in 2007, they will start in 2006. So between now and the end of the year is when -- if we're going to reup lowell and henry, we would have between now and the epd of the year to say those are going it to be our appointments because that happens in January of '06 --
>> 2007.
>> that is actually not our recommendation. To comply with the law, I feel like -- and according to locke lid dell and legal counsel, to get the scenario we have to have two appointments -- if you guys want two, two-year terms, then the two need to start February of 2006, and then we would go to February of 2008. And then the new person would start immediately, but expire in February 2007. So then you've got that staggered that the law requires.
>> all I'm dealing with basically would be one year and two would be two years.
>> I understand that, and I'm in favor of that. I just need to make sure that the court understands that we really are going start this -- the two-year terms we're going to start them in 2006.
>> exactly.
>> so they can be staggered.
>> and the one-year starts in 2006 really because otherwise we don't ever get this -- it's a one-year. We have to blend this with Williamson also because they've got to get their terms done.
>> we have a little bit more time. All I'm trying do is give us more time to do what we want to do with the two currently representing Travis County.
>> exactly. You know their desires, I've relayed that.
>> we'll have another item posted later on do whatever we need. Any more discussion of that motion?
>> yes, mike, when the ctrma was first formulated and put together and organized, there was no overseer at that time. You were basically autonomous and independent. Now you have to take direction and your Marching ores from campo. If campo decides to put tolls on existing roads, then that is a mandate from them and it is what have you do. So again, I want folks to really understand that when this thing was first organized were autonomous, but now you're not. And of course, we'll just have to deal with this accordingly.
>> the statute as revised, amended 2702 in 2005 requires that any road that would be converted to a toll would have to go through a vote of this court and the citizens of Travis County. So we couldn't do it on our own. Campo can't do it on their own. If they wanted to go that rowlt, they would have to take a route.
>> but they can designate. That's what I'm trying to get to, that what I just said. Anyway, I'm going to abstain on this also.
>> any more discussion of the motion? All in favor? Show Commissioners Sonleitner, Gomez, Daugherty, yours truly voting in favor. Abstaining Commissioner Davis.
>> yes.
>> okay. Thank you very much.
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:
Tuesday, August 8, 2006 8:14 PM