Travis County Commissioners Court
February 6, 2007
Item 5
Number 5. Consider and take appropriate action on recommended changes to capital area metropolitan planning organization joint powers agreement. By the way, mr. Arlich, executive director of campo, did expect an interest of being here. I told him that I thought that we would reach this. Three of us are on campo, we were there when the action was taken by the campo board to approve these recommendations and forward them to the various powers much one of which is the Travis County and Travis County Commissioners court. So if we want to address him directly, we would have to postpone until this afternoon or next Tuesday. I told him if questions came up that we thought he should answer, that we would just delay action. But I thought otherwise we had everything pretty much under control.
>> I just have a few questions, judge, whenever you call the item up.
>> it's called up. Joe, do you have a presentation or just questions.
>> I can lay it out or if everyone is familiar with what's being proposed I will just answer questions.
>> why don't we lay out the questions for those in the public that may be interested. We have talked about some of these things for years but have never done them.
>> that's right. This is an agreement that we and several our jurisdictions are signatories to. We have formed by interlocal agreement the campo. Which is the regional transportation planning organize. It has become subsequently the designated metropolitan planning organizations under the federal regulations. So our signature is required in order to restructure how campo works. This is a significant restructuring. There are currently 23 members on the board of directors. Including three members of the Commissioners court. The proposed restructuring would reduce it to 18 members. Travis County still would retain their three seats. But -- but there would be significant changes in who sits on campo. By and large it's a shift from -- from a -- from a composition of state elected officials to a composition of primarily local government officials. With the addition of more municipalities as voting members. So you will have three additional members from -- from small cities within hays, travis and Williamson county. Tom has some clarification he would like to add to the document on how those appointments are to be made. It is our understanding that this Commissioners court would appoint one of those representatives from the small cities within Travis County. Hays and Williamson would do likewise for one city representative in their -- in there, but that's not clearly worded in the document. So I think that -- that tom has some suggested amendments to the document, to clarify. We currently have two state senators on the board that will be reduced to one. We currently have eight state representatives, that will be reduced to two. And the city of Austin will retain four seats, each entity will be responsible for -- for appointing their representatives and alternates. Which we do currently. There's also basically some new procedures that -- that only the elected officials can -- can sit at the board member -- at the board. There's no -- no proxy other than another elected official from the same board. That's never really I think been an issue for the Commissioners court. They have -- they have attended themselves or not had anyone else there in their place. But other elected officials have been sending their aides, I think that is going to be prohibited in the future.
>> as a voting --
>> as a voting member. For example, I have sent bob moore from my staff. Maybe once or twice, but I can still do that, he wouldn't be able to vote. I would have to ask another elected official to go.
>> the Commissioners court would have to designate another elected official, proxy to go under the by laws if I'm not mistaken.
>> I understand.
>> if one of the three of us couldn't make it, the -- the court collectively would say here is your voting proxy person; is that -- that person would go?
>> you designate the alternate. The alternate would go in your place.
>> but would the court do that?
>> yes.
>> the person not being and the to go?
>> my understanding is that the court does designates the alternate.
>> what you are doing is designate a fourth member of the court who will serve as a proxy. If one were not able to go, who -- proxy court member in order to be able to vote.
>> that puts a lot of pressure on somebody because you have got 3 times -- I mean one of the three -- I think that most of us -- the likelihood of that fourth person, if it's Margaret for example, she's got the opportunity for three of us not to if one didn't show up of the three, she's going to get tagged each time, would we an account to -- be able to ask Commissioner Davis or Commissioner Gomez, if one of the two couldn't go, Commissioner Davis do you have an issue with that? Person attend endanger the campo meeting, kind of focused on something else. The way this thing is understanding it, is that if -- if -- person have to be there 50% of all of the meetings that are held, is that correct? If you have a member of the campo board, and you -- and you must attend 50% of the time, that's correct? In other words --
>> in other words --
>> if a member misses more than half the meetings, then the chairman will ask for -- for Commissioners court to replace that member. As the designated representative.
>> okay. We have been under the auspices of being a part of this campo organization ever since I have been -- in fact I served on it,, you know. My concern -- I have several concerns. But one of them is -- is that when we looked at -- you brought up the point about elected officials being am foipted or recommended by this court for small cities, how would that process work. Let's say that we have webberville, which is a small city, got bee cave which is a small city, you have got Pflugerville, which is a small city, we have got, you know, manor which is a small city. How --
>> Mustang Ridge.
>> Mustang Ridge, thank you, Margaret, thank you. Mustang Ridge a small city, how would that -- let's say that everybody is interested. Let's say because I have been hearing folks that say look we have no voice. On -- on the campo board. Now they are restructuring it where these small cities can get within the county. Just one, though, within the county can get there. Let's say that all of those small cities interested in Travis County, how would the Commissioners court determine who gets that position.
>> it's up to you.
>> we have to set up our own rules, stuff like that.
>> 22 municipalities in Travis County. So -- so I mean you could do -- you can do the largest, smallest, have them from within. You can just pick one. I mean it's up to the court. You make your own rules on who you choose.
>> prettiest.
>> back to the question that -- that Commissioner Daugherty asked, this particular restructuring of -- of persons sitting in I guess before Commissioners court said, I can remember -- I serve on the campo board, of course, I never did have a proxy to serve for me. I think that I made most all of the meetings. I think Travis County has a good record of making all of the meetings, especially if it's voting stuff that's coming up. Of course you want to try to be there. We have a pretty good record of that. But it never did, you know, I did with this other people sitting there, but I don't recall them having a -- having an opportunity to vote. I just can't remember. It's been too long ago. What we are saying today, though, is that -- in -- an alternate would -- would be available, whosever -- I guess a case-by-case basis, if the folks can't make it to their meetings, they can't make it. And I guess at times they will have to ask that alternate if they can make it. If an alternate can't make it, they can't make it. What I'm trying to say, though, is what -- what across the board from what we did in the past, what we did now as far as the restructuring, anything varies in its restructured thing, whereby we -- we are sitting on the campo board atmosphere an alternate. That didn't change or did it change. As far as the recommendations that are coming up. I need to know what's the deal on that. You know, it's always been
>> [indiscernible] hasn't it? I'm asking. Alternate format, I'm asking. Alternate would have to substitute for this person on this court. You never have witnessed anything like that, I'm asking the question.
>> I don't know if we have had alternates in the past for campo.
>> we never had alternates that were court members. A court member could choose a staff member to serve as a proxy, the proxy could vote just like the member of the court.
>> it never did happen to me.
>> since I've been on there because some of the -- some of the legislators routinely did not come. They would send their proxies instead. During the session. And when the legislature was not in session which made it a bad practice. So I think that's a good one. The other thing is if you miss half the meetings, your mind is not there anyway. If one member here misses more than half the meeting, really to either -- I guess we could always reappoint that person after getting a promise to improve attendance or getting another member of this court to represent the Commissioners court there. I'm not representing Sam Biscoe there. I'm supposed to be representing the Travis County Commissioners court is my understanding. I would understand the alternate would vote the way the Commissioners court votes on issue.
>> to the extent that it's possible, right. Maybe it's puts more responsibility on us to go ahead and give notice of our formal positions. Which we can do.
>> I don't think it would mean that I would go there, vote my personal opinion because, you know, it makes sense that you are there to represent Travis County Commissioners court.
>> right, well ... Where there's consensus.
>> yeah. I don't think it's no big secret about how I feel about toll roads. Those that were approved of the voters, there's no big secret about that. Coming up, dealing with tolls, phase two. I'm not supportive of toll road on this road, in other words I don't know if I would be a good candidate to be an alternate, I would probably be down there doing what I did before, strong opposition to a whole bunch of stuff. Me and my constituents do not support. Precinct one is up there in arms about this right now. They are up in arms right now as I sit here. But anyway I'm going to -- to look at this and -- and maybe just kind of consideration but I don't see the difference in what we did before. This court has a super track record as far as attendance is concerned. If nobody was there, appeared nothing was going on, I think that I had almost perfect attendance, I believe, when I severed. We have been blessed because almost all of us did.
>> I don't know if it's a big issue for us, maybe for somebody else.
>> if the recommendations are to approve, though, the Commissioners court would have to take several steps that we have not had to take in the past. One the selection of a small city representative. The goal there is really to give small cities a bit more representation on the campo board.
>> cities in general.
>> yeah.
>> how you go about that depends on us and there are a whole lot of them. And a lot of them maybe interested in serving. We could rotate membership. I see us really trying to be as fair as possible. But a lot of the small city elected officials also have full-time jobs doing other stuff. Once they appreciate the time committee -- the last one went on until 11:30 at night. I don't think that we will have a rush of -- a flood of the small-time elected officials stepping fort and saying I accept this opportunity and challenge. But for the one that's indicate an interest, it seems to me that we would fairly try to -- to share the importance operation opportunity -- participation opportunity as much as possible. So we would have to do that, then we would have to -- to probably choose at least one member of the court who would serve if one of the three who serve on campo cannot attend, that's the second action. What's the third one? Is there one? We would not have to worry about doing these things in the past.
>> I don't believe there's another action that we would have to take.
>> that we haven't taken in the past.
>> does this change, introduced by -- by senator -- that's approved by the -- by the -- by the campo board, does that alter anything into the end bedness, as far as what's in the law as far as recognizing planning organizations that would deed with -- that would deal with a lot of roads, as far as state laws.
>> this does not change the federal regulations, it does not change the purpose or -- or the authority that campo has.
>> okay. There's a lot of references to where there was the pac, policy action committee, to be changed to the transportation board, that's in a lot of aspects, for clarity as it goes through the whole document as far as the
>> [indiscernible] is concerned, is that correct, judge.
>> that does not substantively change the nature of what the board does, the authority that it has. It the governing body, the membership changed. The balance of power has changed, but the authority is granted to the board under state and federal law they have not changed. What is the time line, my last question, judge, what is the time line as far as implementation or -- the governing body as far as Travis County, you have the city, other stuff like that, involved in this, what is the time line that they need to come back and approve this act, these recommendations, let me put it like that. What's the time line on that. You still have other governmental entities that need to look at this, come on board. Is that -- was there a magic number, a magic time line sitting out there have to take action?
>> I'm unaware of the desire of the board, whether they set a deadline for their -- literally -- six sitting tores, you have -- signatories, Travis County, williams, city of Austin, txdot, capital metro, all six of those signatories have to sign in order to make these changes effective. I don't know if campo board sent out a directive.
>> joe the answer to that. They were going to go back, some of the boards like capital metro may not do it until the third weekend or the third week of February whatever, I think that we are going to try to vote on this thing in March. To see if we can get the signatories all signed off in February and we have enough time to post it, then that will be the case. If not then probably will be April.
>> the reason that we are doing that, that's our next meeting.
>> that's what I mean, some of the folks that have different times to meet but, you know, come March we may be ready, if all of the signatories are in agreement, you know, we will agendize it and it will take place in March.
>> okay.
>> that was my last question, judge.
>> one other important point I think is that the minority representation on campo came from Travis County, so that will be intact. City of Austin, councilmember kim, as far as I know that will be intact. But also came from two members of the legislature. Rod rods and representative -- rodriguez and representative dukes, if we reduce the number of state legislators from 8 to 2, they may well not end up on there. This question came up and the members doing the appointing have to be -- have to be aware of -- of that possibility and take the action necessary to make sure that we have -- that we have, you know, meaningful minority representation on campo.
>> when you look at the number of state representatives, I think everybody a com pa thought they were overrepresented. That issue came up at least for the last six, seven years. The record that was done by the independent consulting -- consultants sort of recommended that it was -- that it was state rep heavy. For that matter I guess state senator heavy, also. And so -- so the -- so the thinking there was you know maybe you ought to have a few more officials elected and that represent local folk. I mean, sort of excluded representatives that way. I don't know that I reached the same conclusion. But you know it did kind of price me that there was very little opposition from campo members, including those being adversely impacted by the recommendations. And I think the whole board kind of saw this as something that would happen by the -- by the partners. Because the partners recommended the recommendation. It sort of made sense. We had quite a bit of time to look at the recommendations before taking actions. They were kind of advanced by that last consultant's report. Had to be at least five or six years old, never acted on. That's the only little flich that we really addressed and sort of concluded that member partners have to be aware of that possibility and take the steps necessary to make sure there's representation.
>> to that point, just for clarification, the record and for those people who are watching, we are talking strictly about the joint powers agreement at this point. That vote on January 22nd, I was the only one who voted no. We had two issues before us. The joint powers agreement, the by laws agreement, voted on as a package deal. I still had inc.gerring doubts about -- lingering doubts about the specific provision in the bylaws regarding agenda requests. So mine was a no vote. But it did not reflect my opposition to the joint powers agreement. As it was amended I have no problems with the joint powers agreement.
>> the agenda thing, I forget what that was. Instead of having 3 members ever the policy board moving for an agenda item and getting an automatic agendaing instead it has to go through the -- through the executive committee. The chair decide, if the chair decides adversely to the policy board member asking for the agenda item, the policy board member can then petition the executive committee to get it on by majority vote of the executive committee. Making it more difficult to get items on the agenda too to be honest one of the few times I've had an agenda item passed, I requested it, they put it on. I think if you request it, you ought to be able to get it on, period.
>> if that does become an issue that would be something that I would be interested in changing by the bylaws, that was my lingering issue and hence my no vote on that package deal.
>> the
>> [indiscernible] agreement is not the same as the bylaws. Joint powers.
>> that's my point. We have joint powers discussion only. I'm glad that we do have it strictly joint powers agreement and not wrapped up in the bylaws.
>> you know, let me ask this question, judge. This spurred something else up. There were several plans, other plans, not several, but other plans defined in the law somewhere, I don't remember what -- I don't remember when it was. Is there anything in addition to the campo plan that received recognition. Because there were several plans out there before. Of course in the state -- then the state said well there's too many plans out there for us to look at. Transportation out there, we are going to look at campo and -- and
>> [indiscernible] is that still intact, also? The others of that mentioned?
>> to my knowledge yeah they -- in terms of campo's power, the main power there is -- is campo has to approve the project in order for federal funds to be used for it. That's not changing. I think what you are recalling is that -- is the discussion we had with the city of Austin when we did the joint subdivision code, and make county subdivision regulations consistent with city subdivision regulations. City subdivision regulations used to call for roads in the -- in the amatp. Austin metropolitan area transportation plan.
>> right.
>> which was different than cam posm the county regulations called for campo.
>> exactly.
>> the legislature actually resolved that by saying when a city and county do a joint code, they have to go with the mpo plan which in our case would be campo.
>> okay. That's very important to hear because there's just so many things going on, in the fast track. I want to make sure that we are on course with what we are doing here because it going to possibly affect some things up -- up later. Joe, I'm sorry.
>> I was going to comment. I think the significance of that document is that the transportation issues will be local issues. I mean, clearly the board member and the composition of the board are local elected officials. This will replace all of the hot issues in your -- this will place all of the hot issues in your lap. They will be coming to you as local elected officials to resolve. I think the original intent of the federal legislation was that the federal government when they created these mpo's throughout the country were tired of being in the middle. They said whatever the local elected officials agree to we will abide by that. Throughout the united states this is more typical of how they were formed than the way we currently are formed. There are a few state elected officials, mainly cities and counties. We are really getting in line I think with the rest of the country. But on the issues, when we started adopting the plans, onces closest -- ones closest to the people will be deciding these issues. The other thing is more a -- a more municipal controlled process. When you look at the total composition, cities now have nine votes, counties have five, there's five others, I think there is a shift in the balance of power to municipalities. That will reflect a shift as well when it comes to a vote.
>> public end put. I'm still -- input, I'm still concerned about that. We have volatile issues, I mean hot issues in this movement. Roads and tolls a whole bunch of other stuff. Did that alter any type of process where the county voice their opinion and their concern as far as having public input into the process. Not as far as federal regulations, adding or attracting, any part including any type of public participation required by federal laws.
>> I just wants to make sure that's perfectly clear, coming up with recommendations in the joint agreement here. And of course it's there -- there has been alterations to it and n that regard I think it needs to be stated otherwise people will be surprised.
>> thanks.
>> tom, you have -- you have amendment language you say?
>> if you will although at article 1 organization, number 3, which is the provision that deals with -- with the three elected officials from small cities, it says there to be selected by the Commissioners courts, courts plural of travis, Williamson hays county. If you look at that on its face, each one would have to be approved by each court. I asked joe if that was the intent. He didn't think that it was. He thought each Commissioners court appoint the member to each county. To me that's a little unclear. One way to handle it would be clarifying the campo record, bylaws, that's not what you mean. That would leave the language there, five years down the road. When everybody has forgotten about this dialogue, somebody may say the contract says they are supposed to be approved by all three. If you want to avoid that problem, my suggestion would be -- to be selected by the respective Commissioners court by travis, Williamson and hays county.
>> along with what the judge was saying earlier, I am -- do you believe that this language leaves it up to the Commissioners court to determine the term of the -- of those individuals as far as the possibility of some sort of rolling -- rolling delegates to the policy board.
>> yes, absent something being inserted in the campo bylaws to the contrary. You can use whatever criteria that you like.
>> would it create more clarity and stability over time if we added something to the effect of respected Commissioners court of travis, Williamson, hays to include an elected official from a small city in each of the three counties or a term in a manner to -- determined by the Commissioners court? Commissioners courts.
>> I think that would ensure something to the contrary could not an inserted into the bylaws. With that language, yeah, the contract would always prevail.
>> then I would move inclusion of that language.
>> I'm not sure that I understand. Why don't we do this. Why don't you rewrite this language, let us call this back up this afternoon and look at it. That way we know exactly what it is. This is language that we would propose to campo to insert into this agreement instead of -- instead of current language.
>> from the bylaws.
>> the bylaws are not posted.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt's preference is that it be in the contract.
>> okay.
>> so the question this afternoon would be legally what should it number the bylaws or the -- or the agreement. My recommendation on the bylaws is that we have issues with those, we should post that next week with specific recommendations and I would have done it this week, but I had forgotten that issue that we discussed. But the -- but the -- this language, though, addresses the powers agreement. So my recommend is that between now and early this afternoon we have specific language typed out that we substitute for what's in the current partners agreement.
>> okay?
>> how is that? We will see exactly what it is.
>> it need to start here because, you know, the clarity needs to -- it just needs to be consistent with the bylaws, so I agree. That's --
>> yeah.
>> okay. No problem.
>> yeah.
>> okay. If we do that, my only other thing would be that we send it not only to campo, but to all of the partners first thing tomorrow morning if we approve it this afternoon so they will see it. Today they are down in Williamson county, I guess they are at other places after today.
>> well, I guarantee you nobody is going to have a problem with this, everybody would have the same problem that we would I mean if we were going to have to weigh in on somebody's appointment in hays county or Williamson county.
>> oh, yeah.
>> the other thing is that my understanding is that -- whatever goes back to -- to the specific document approved by the partners, is the majority vote or a anonymous vote on the partners?
>> I think --
>> it think it has to be unanimous.
>> whatever the exact language is, all of the partners have to approve it before it goes back to campo.
>> that's why it's important to alert everyone know to the proposed change.
>> let's do it over lunch, exact language, bring it back up this afternoon. Any other -- other issues with he -- we need to work on over lunch? Okay. Let's indicate our intention to -- to delay action on number 5 until this afternoon, we will call it back up.
This morning we did have a discussion of fum number -- of item number 5, which is to consider and take appropriate, on recommended change to capital area metropolitan planning organization joint powers agreement. And during that discussion a recommended language change for subsection 3 of article 1 came up, and we asked legal counsel to prepare the language for us over lunch and present it to us this afternoon, and we have that before us. Tom? As the presenter...
>> the language that is proposed that difz from what -- that differs from what already in your backup is what has the double underlining in what has been handed out to you. The rest of the change, the strikeouts and the single underlining, those are the change proposed. That's what in your backup, so what is in the double underlining is whootion under -- is what's under discussion here, adding respective in front of Commissioners court and making Commissioners court single. To clarify --
>> can you read the whole language for us? For our millions of fans out there in tv land and mr. Alek and ms. Hedgis.
>> the revised language would be three elected officials from the small cities within the campo area to be selected by the respective Commissioners court of travis, Williamson and hays counties to include an elected official from a small city in each of these three counties selected for a term and in a manner determined by each Commissioners court.
>> now, before the language was sort of unclear as to whether travis, Williamson and hays would get together and choose these three or whether each of us would choose one. Do you see what I'm saying? So what we tried to do is clarify the language that was clear, each of us would choose one, so Travis County Commissioners court would choose one small city rep from Travis County, the other two counties would do the same. I think that was the intention anyway.
>> yes, sir. I agree that was the intention of the campo board when it recommended this that Travis County Commissioners could select a city in Travis County and so on. That was the intention.
>> right. Plus we don't like stuff to go by without us wordsmithing it a little bit no matter how good it is. That was the change we discussed as to the partners' agreement, right? Or the powers agreement.
>> right.
>> and the other one we'll have on the agenda next week for the bylaws clarifying one or two of those points. Anything on the powers agreement. Mr. Alrik is here.
>> yes, sir. They did not take up this item. Hays county Commissioner court took it up this morning. They approve the joint powers agreement.
>> when is it supposed to come before the Austin city council?
>> February 15th, a week from this Thursday.
>> February 15 its? Williamson county a creek from today and capital metro the last Monday in February.
>> so everything this month basically.
>> yes, that's right.
>> as far as coming before those different entities.
>> we're anticipating having it on the March agenda, mike?
>> for campo?
>> I think it's possible if all the signatory act that the new 18 member board could be seated at the mafn 19th campo meeting. If everything happens. You know, the signatories need to approve it, but you're doing that today, and then the three senators have to get together and select one senator and then the two representatives in Williamson county select one representative and the representatives in Travis County select one representative and each of the Commissioners court select their cities. Conceivably that could all happen before the March 19th campo meeting.
>> judge, what would you -- how would you anticipate us moving forward with how we're going to determine what we're going to do with these three cities or the three representatives from the small cities?
>> I think we've put an item on the agenda next week and indicate -- send them a short letter, basically summarizing the campo change indicating the procedure Travis County Commissioner court plan to use to fill it. The first question would be are you interested. And we may want to just have a couple of sentences saying here what we understand the commitment to be. Now, there is great premium placed on attendance, interest, attendance and maybe give some examples of the issue that we've dealt with. A lot of smart city officials may run from this opportunity, otherwise may embrace it, but I think -- if they're interested, I think they ought to indicate that to us and maybe between now and next week too we will indicate what selection criteria we will use. In my view the fairest thing in the world is if we have multiple ones interested, just say we plan to rotate this annually or every two years. It kind of take awhile to get used to how campo actually operates. You hate for that person to have to step down a minute after he or she really gets acclimated. I think we ought to be driven by the number of interested officials from the small cities.
>> we allow tnr to notify the 22 communities in Travis County? Those that may be interested will come in next week and if this item is posted on the agenda to see if there's a generated interest.
>> maybe get a draft letter from tnr and are have a draft letter for us to approve.
>> see if there is any interest in anyone wanting to seven.
>> there's going to be a lot of work to be done on this thing because I would think that all of those city councils and alder men and all the people that are elected in each one of these communities are going to have to collectively get together and say okay, there may be more than one person from each one of those that want to be on that.
>> I do think we ought to tell them we expect one to come from your city. I don't know that I'd open the door for two or three to come from one small city.
>> no, not that. I'm just saying that they've got to be each of the entities have to be given the time to determine amongst themselves how they are going to come up with the -- let's say that volente does want somebody. Then I would suppose that they would probably have to agendaize it and some of these communities may not meet but once a month or once every couple of weeks. So this thing -- this could get in to taking us quite a bit of time so that come March we're not going to be able to set this. Ours is going to be easy, but these --
>> I think the issue is when is the first meeting at which you can address this issue. And our request is that you do it as soon as possible.
>> the other thing, judge, is are they going to need to have an alternate as well so in case they can't make it for the meeting they need to have another elected official designated?
>> it's the same rule.
>> they don't have to.
>> so maybe you could have somebody represent one little city and the alternate be from another city.
>> Commissioner, I think if you approve this language, and this language make it into the joint powers agreement, then who the alternate is would be up to y'all. You could delegate it to the city and say you decide for us or you could have your own list of alternates because the manner of selection is left up to y'all under this language.
>> okay.
>> judge, for what it's worst, I agree with the attorney because it says that each entity that appoints a member shall designate its representative and alternates. The other thing I want to point out is I don't know if the Travis County Commissioners court when they appointed their delegates also appointed alternates, but for an alternate to take a seat at campo, the Commissioners court needs to say this is our alternate and the member who can't come needs to notify the chairman that one of the alternates are coming.
>> we discussed that at length this morning. Underlying length. We plan to have that on the agenda next week.
>> that's one of the thing we noticed in rereading the joint powers agreement that that was a detail that's there. And I'll also say the language says that the elected officials will be selected by the commission irz court, not the cities.
>> you're in the trying to get out in front of the county, are you?
>> no, sir.
>> [ laughter ] any comments?
>> no.
>> other than wishing us well?
>> [ laughter ]
>> good luck.
>> any more discussion? Move that the Commissioners court approves the joint powers agreement with this change to recommend to campo and the campo partners.
>> second.
>> my thinking this morning was that we should communicate this to the other entities as soon as possible. Can we let them know that you have no objection? Do you think this is consistent with the recommended language from campo?
>> yes, sir, it is the intent and if -- you can convey it if you wish. If you don't mind, I will convey it also this afternoon myself to the other signatories.
>> sounds good to me. Let's see how this vote goes. You bold enough to do that, I'm bold enough to see you do it. All in favor? Show a unanimous Commissioners court at Travis County.
>> thank you, judge.
>> thank you very much. Next week we'll have appropriate follow-up items on the agenda to enable us to do what we need to do.
>> mike, can I just give this to the capital metro board? I'll just give them a copy of this.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> [ laughter ]
>> I will go send an e-mail within the hour. 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:
Wednesday, February 7, 2007 6:48 PM