Travis County Commissioners Court
February 27, 2007
Item 36
Item number 36 is to consider and -- no, conduct interviews of two applicants for membership on central Texas regional mobility authority board and take appropriate action, namely jamie lynn allen and mikel lment e s. Meade. We did receive a request today from ms. Allen to withdraw her from consideration. After looking at this matter, we convinced her to seek public office and we're taking credit for that. Right now an elected official cannot serve on the ctrma board by law, and she has not been elected to public office yet, but she is optimistic about that, has withdrawn, so that leaves you. And most of us on the Commissioners cowt know you -- on the Commissioners court know you already and won't have a problem. My first is do you know what you're getting into it.
>> I do.
>> you know some of the work it has done since the ctrma's creation.
>> yes.
>> some has been controversial and attracted media attention.
>> yes.
>> a lot of media attention.
>> all right.
>> you've been keeping up.
>> questions?
>> I have a few. We have spoken on the phone yesterday, so I don't want to sand bag anyone, just open up debate. We've met before and so many people speak so highly of you, ms. Meade. There was a state comptroller's report that came out in 2005, I believe, and one of the issues that was raised by that report was the noncompete clause in the bond documents. It what is your feeling on that. How does that noncompete clause tie us down. What if any do you see are the problems with the noncompete clause and what are our obligations if the public interest should end up being emphasized in that noncompete document?
>> I wouldn't necessarily say that noncompete clause necessarily presents a problem, but I do think that it does create an obligation on the county's part and other entities that would be affected that could create obligations on your part that would fealts your ongoing projects. And so I think it would just have to be addressed. I thought that in the report some valid comments and concerns were raised, but it didn't seem to me to be anything that couldn't be overcome or dealt with.
>> the bonds are actually the bonds between the ctrma and the financial institution rather than the county an the fblg institutions. So do you see any conflicts raise bid the idea that the ctrma is binding public policy through these financial documents? For instance, I understand that the actual language of the indenture was -- perhaps this is just the title of it -- a covenant not to build competing systems to 183-a.
>> what your question?
>> on the end, we as a conglomerate of public entities, decided that there were major improvements in and around the 183-a corridor that were needed that would compete for revenue with 183-a, which of course was bonded through the ctrma, and the ctrma was requested to kick in on those, do you think that covenant would restrict their participation in the improvements of roadways around 183-a?
>> I actually think it would prevent their participation. I do think the purpose of that was to try to avoid the situation that we have competing project. And so I think that although the intent of that is probably a good intent and probably makes sense, I do think that it could, as I said, present future problems when we do have need for competing projects that compete in the technical sense, but really serve to complicate one another. I think that the concerns that I read in the audit maybe overstate the concern a lot bit or the potential problems a little bit. I do think, though, that if entities are working together and -- I think those potential problems can be pretty easily overcome.
>> I知 kind of spinning out a hypothetical from the same scenario. If, for instance, a lane of 183 a or a roadway adjacent to 183 a were to be made into a pot lane, for instance, with the express purpose not of generating revenue, but the express purpose to encourage high occupancy commuter works that also be presented by this covenant?
>> I think if you read it on its face it would be prevented by the covenant. And I think that the entities would have to work together to figure out how to accomplish that. But I do think if you read that clause, covenant or clause, I think on its face it would prevent the ability to be able to do that.
>> and if there were excess revenue from 183 or any other ctrma project, putting that excess revenue towards a public transit option that competed with the ridership of the toll ways would also be prevented by the covenant?
>> well, if I understand how the funds work, the ctrma can basically sort of simplify it, put that excess revenue towards any project that moves people, whether it be -- as I understand it, even bicycle and pedestrian transportation. And so I do think that -- I think a very good argument can be made that having multimodal transportation and different types of transportation systems, adding a high occupancy lane as you're saying, a good argument could be made that it wouldn't necessarily be prohibited by that covenant and wouldn't necessarily compete, but I think the preferential thing to do is probably to look at either ways to amend that through legislation or ways to -- for the entities to work together to come to some agreement about that not necessarily being a competition situation.
>> so you think it could be mitigated through legislation?
>> I think it possibly could if we could look at somehow either clarifying or changing the noncompete provision.
>> and moving to another related area. There have been criticisms of the ctrma's -- the way the ctrma was created. And the criticism is that it has very little dmowbility the way that -- accountability in the way that it is structured to the public. How would you see -- what methods would you think most practical to increasing accountability for rma actions?
>> I think careful selection of an appointment of board members is the first step. I think some of the ideas that senator watson has proposed possibly concerning elected officials to participate as members of the board will have a definite effect, positive impact if that actually happens. And I also think the concepts of doing everything in open, not having any transactions that aren't open to the public as they would be in any other governmental entity, and consistent with what senator watson is proposing, establishing -- I hate to call it a neutral third entity because it really isn't neutral, but a separate group of persons, hopefully most of whom are elected and are directly accountable to constituents and to the public to have some oversight. And that's not to say that you have to be elected to have a responsibility to the public. I think everybody on the board should have responsibility, should feel a sense of fiduciary and other responsibility to the public, but I think having elected officials who really are supposedly the spokespersons for a particular constituency will help.
>> what do you see as the difference in -- whether there's a difference in the relationship that the ctrma has with txdot versus the relationship the ctrma has with campo?
>> the differences?
>> I think the ctrma relationship has appeared to me to be almost administrative with txdot in a sense, not necessarily all that functional. And I think the relationship with campo has the opportunity to sort of put in place that accountability that you're talking about by allowing that group to have a little bit more oversight than it has had over the actions in the project that are ongoing that are ctrma projects.
>> in what ways would you recommend for holding the rma responsibility for the equitable spreading of both the cost and the benefit of the presentation projects that the ctrma is spearheading?
>> I think everybody involved and has to see it as an enterprise. That you are not going to be able to generate revenue unless you are keeping customers happy. And again, I don't think that anybody necessarily hates a toll road, but I do think that there has to be a real keen sense of necessity, keen sense that dollars are being used wisely, that the board members are really assessing the risks of these projects, and that the public is being kept aware. Those are the things that I would say will really help the organization to have credibility. And really ultimately creditability when you speak to the issue of revenue continuing to come through the door to balance that against the operation and infrastructure costs.
>> one of the risks that have been levied against the rma is that moving to a comprehensive toll system for our major roadways in the region has the possibility of creating a two tiered transportation system, one for folks who can afford it and one for the folks who can't. How would you suggest that that charge be addressed by the rma?
>> I think it's tough because it really can be perceived that way and I think it's a valid perception. I do think we need to be very careful about sticking to the policy of not converting, not taking roads that are already existing and we need to find ways to enhance without tolls other modes of transportation throughout our region so that we are maintaining our existing roads and providing other transportation opportunities that are not just toll. I do think ctrma has an opportunity to do that as they do come by excess funds. And my hope would be that ctrma really would focus on trying to do that when the opportunity is there.
>> but these covenants could be an impediment to that.
>> I think so, yes.
>> I think those are my questions.
>> I have a couple. One is do you think you will have the time commitment necessary to be an effective board member? The first year I know they worked many, many days and nights. And the time commitment now possibly pales in comparison to what it was the first year, but it does require some time.
>> correct.
>> and you work with a law firm, right?
>> the firm is behind you in this endeavor?
>> absolutely. And I was careful to check with existing bottoms about the realtime commitment, not just what is claimed, but the actual time commitment. It does still look like it's still quite a considerable amount of time required. I did speak with the board member whose position is being relinquished about the actual amount of time and I think it is a considerable amount of time, but I have spoken with my partners at the law fim about the time required and I think I should be able to work it out fine.
>> okay. Currently the Williamson county appoints three, Travis County appoints three, the governor appoints the chair. And how do you see yourself interacting with the Commissioners court if the court appoints you as a Travis County representative?
>> I presently serve as a representative of the court with the -- to the federally qualified health centers board and have been careful to make sure that I am truly a representative in that I am speaking the voice of the court and the policies of the court, and so my opinion would be that I would be sevenning as a rent of this court, and would try to make decisions consistent that maintain fiduciary responsibilities that I have, but consistent with the policies of this organization.
>> as we mentioned earlier, board member zamid is stepping down, so the person we appoint will basically fill her slot. And I think her tenure currently expires February of '08.
>> I think that is correct.
>> we will check that and be sure. That's your understanding too?
>> yes, correct.
>> any other questions? Do you have any questions for us?
>> I don't think so.
>> you thought about this. You and I chatted informally about it and I encouraged you to chat with some of the board members.
>> as I did.
>> so they could give you a more realistic --
>> had varying things to say.
>> [ laughter ]
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> it tell you that there are probably some -- some things that they have voted on that all five of us may not agree with.
>> right.
>> so there's a little bit of a balancing act there now. I think that it's a little bit -- a little probably by design they haven't come to us. I know that I have met at least with one and two of our appointments just in my office. But I do think it would be very healthy for us to have the opportunity, if it's twice a year or whatever, where the three, at least our three board members come to us and say hey we have some questions for y'all. Because this issue is not going away just because we haven't voted on the -- on the t.i.f. Let's face it I mean the controversial will start again come June or July. Because that's when we are probably going to bring that thing back up to campo. So I would just say mikhail that I think that it's really important to keep news the loop. Don't be afraid of the response, I mean, it's -- because it's needed. And if we don't have a healthy dialogue from the court and the three court members, then I think that we have the potential to -- of getting real, you know, cross ways on some particular issues. Fyi, for what it's worth.
>> absolutely agreed.
>> still no questions for us?
>> no, I don't think so.
>> I nuevo laredo we appoint -- I move that we appoint mick kill meade to -- mikhail meade to represent Travis County on the ctrma. That we authorize the county judge to spend appropriate notification to the ctrma chair and executive director and, third, that we authorize the county judge to spend mrs. Mud an appropriate letter of appreciation if court members will give me any wording that you have by 5:00 Thursday, my goal is to get this letter to her in the mail by Friday. Otherwise it will be two or three months before it comes to me again.
>> may I -- I知 going to abstain from this vote. I would like to explain why. While I知 in no way dissatisfied with the qualifications of our lone applicant and having spoken with a few individuals who have worked with you as well, I want to say that I have no problem, I知 very impressed and I am also troubled that we only have one applicant. And I am concerned that voting with only one applicant in the pool will fan the fires of the -- the assertions that the rma has been kind of a back room deal. So that is my purpose for abstaining and also with the fact that I am rather new here and was not involved in the process, I can't speak to the other members feeling that the search was exhaustive and the unwillingness to reopen the feeling that there would not be additional applicants. But again with just one applicant in the field, I fear that it does create a -- an appearance that -- that is unattractive for the rma.
>> in my view the ctrma is not an attractive opportunity, so we really appreciate your willingness to serve. Anybody who is -- who has seen how the members have been treated over the last couple of years I think would probably reach the same conclusion. Now from the court's perspective, we received mrs. Mud's resignation August 1 of 2006. And accepted it, we posted at the first opportunity August 8th and -- and we haved it only one application, went back out. On October 24th, out there five weeks and receive two, yours added to the other one. The other person withdrew. For good reason. So I don't know that we could have done more short in taking a pistol and going up and lining up 10 people and coming in and choosing one of them. That's just reality that we are forced to deal with.
>> but I think that sarah's words are -- are, you know, really should mean something and -- and they probably are watching this, if not I mean I知 sure somebody is going to say hey you need to get on and see what was said. It's not fair, mikhail, to put you all in the cross hairs. It is kind of voting for you to be on the board, you know, for lack of a better way to put it, the fact that you have -- that you have thrown your hat in the ring is almost grounds for you to not be appointed because there's got to be something a little wrong is kind of how I feel about, you know, the elected -- being in the elected spot at times myself because it is let me tell ya, it's tough. And especially with what's happened in this community with the personal things that have come at all of us. I mean it is -- I致e said it many a time, you can differ with all of us, but to put us in the spots that we have been put in in the -- and the names that we have been called, I mean, that's not just names.
>> and the board members.
>> and the board members and I think that that is really unfortunate. So take -- take sarah's words to heed and really to heart and I think that anything that can be done where you get out there and you try to show as many people as you can that this is not just a back room good old boy kind of a deal and be able to fade the heat because there are people that come at you more ago guessism than what you should. But it's not like you don't know what you are getting yourself into. I echo the judge's words about I appreciate there being willing people to do it because unfortunately you have got to have somebody do it.
>> it's important.
>> and it's a very, very important --
>> it's more political than our jobs.
>> welcome.
>> and by the way we are here to help. So if we can help.
>> thank you.
>> this is the policy area that everyone is interested in this policy area. Everyone should be. This is a very -- a fundamental change in the way we are envisioning funding our transportation system and it's going to have far-reaching effects on the tax equity of our region. And I fear detrimental effects on the tax equity of our region.
>> we have different opinions about this, also. I have not concluded that having an elected official on there makes any difference unless it makes it worse. But I may be persuaded otherwise. I haven't yet. Others strongly feel just the opposite.
>> it may be worth the -- more the appearance than anything else to the public.
>> everybody hates toll roads and -- until you have a hard time getting from a to b much then if you have got a buck in your pocket and a buck will get you there, you use it. I haven't done it in Austin, but in dallas and other states I have done that. And at the same time everybody would choose a free road over one that you have got to pay a dollar to travel I think. But it's coming to the point where you can't get from a to b on a free road in the same time that we could 10 or 15 years ago. We have been slow to build roads. Don't get me started on this. You see what awaits you.
>> the fact, the notion that you need to have elected people on this that would lend more credibility. Campo has 23 board members and 21 of them are elected.
>> right.
>> it doesn't make any difference if you are elected or if you are not. What makes a difference to somebody is do you believe like I believe. If you don't, well, then I don't care if you are elected or not. I don't like ya. I don't like the decision that you made. So -- so it's pretty hard to please.
>> good luck to you.
>> thank you very much.
>> all in favor? Show Commissioners Gomez, Daugherty, Davis and yours truly in favor.
>> abstaining.
>> Commissioner eckhardt for the reasons stated.
>> too late
>> [laughter]
>> don't back out now.
>> thank you all.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much. Now, I did not mention number 13, which is the -- the health care district's request for us to do the little purchasing staff. I told cyd that we would postpone it one more week, I will make sure that I chat with trish young again. I think she asked to -- plans to ask the city of Austin if they can do this for the health care district. Hopefully we will know that next week. Number 12. Travis County health care district for purchasing services from Travis County we will have back on next week. Ms. Porter, according to my calculations we have done.
>> move adjourn.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
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 28, 2007 8:20 AM