Travis County Commissioners Court
January 27, 2009
Item A1
I was about to go to the legislative item a 1. We are still waiting on john, right? A1. Consider and take appropriate action on county position regarding legislative options to increase transportation mobility funding. This is testify time sensitive because they are hoping to go to the legislature and would like to know our position on it, right?
>> you probably have some time on that, but -- but I think we are looking to -- to -- to start some discussions here within central Texas among the local elected officials. In this coalition of non-profit organizations. That have formed in -- in an effort to try to get something done for additional transportation funding options at the legislature. Seems like this is going to be a state-wide topic, a lot of information, as well as local elected officials. But reca has basically initiated the discussions. Several months back, I think that you may have recalled they presented Travis County with a list of a whole menu of different transportation funding options, including -- including state-wide options and the local options. What they are trying to do now is get some sense from the local elected officials, one of those -- what of those local options are perhaps preferred and those that are not
>> [indiscernible] choice. What I presented to you is -- is several attachments. Exhibit a is the home menu of transportation funding option, some that affect state-wide funding diversions between the
>> [indiscernible] location funding
>> [multiple voices]
>> stop diversions can they?
>> already down for that.
>> the court in jumping forward quickly back in April of 2008, we were preparing for testimony before the senate transportation and homeland security committee. Prior to that the Commissioners court did adopt a policy statement, that is exhibit b. In your backup. So the county is already on record with -- with that statement. But it really addresses more the state-wide transportation funds than it does the local. The only local option that we -- the state made in that statement was for an additional local option on a local gas tax. And there are any number of other local transportation funding options that are available and I don't know if the -- at the time that we just -- we just chose not to take a position on those or -- or wanted them to think about it some more. I know in our discussions since then we have talked about any number of things like a $10 registration fee that would be set aside for mobility purposes. We have also talked about a -- about a development impact fee. Also generate funds for -- for transportation. Those are not part of our current policy statement. So really I think the purpose of my putting this on the agenda is to get discussion among the Commissioners court about ail of those other local options. To get you to start thinking about it and maybe come back, maybe not today, but in a subsequent -- agenda request to refine the statement that we have already adopted and that way our legislative consultant can use that as they are in discussions with these transportation agencies locally and also with our local delegation when legislation is submitted and there will be legislation submitted either separate legislation or as part of the sunset review of txdot. We know that there will be bills submitted and these bills will be addressing alternative transportation funding. I just wanted to make sure that the Commissioners court has some participation in that discussion.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> and of course this -- but some of the suggestions in here as we go forward to the legislature would have statewide impact. So I guess my question to you and I guess to those folks that are hopefully the legislative delegation, our legislative delegation is listening. I'm quite sure they tune in to this also. Is the other counties, where are they in this particular alternative funding, mobility funding, and the time line that we may have to get this in motion before our state -- our delegation, Travis County delegation that's there now. So several things that are moving. And so I just don't know and so I'm posing that question to you and anybody else that can answer it.
>> I wish I could -- I had a broader statewide view. I don't. I'm told that the north Texas, dallas, tarrant county, are somewhat taking the lead on packaging alternatives for the legislature. And I don't know what other counties around the state, harris or bexar or any of the others. Perhaps some of you may know what the council of urban counties may be doing in this regard, and perhaps dietz does if dietz would like to join me. But all I know is that my discussions have been primarily with local representatives.
>> okay.
>> joe, so -- I just wanted to do a procedural thing. I think dietz will be coming down. I think they just came back from a meeting regarding this very topic, so you're not alone, joe. They're coming. We have more folks coming.
>> well, just one question that I guess we can throw out and I guess whoever will show up to maybe give me an answer. Okay. Did you hear the question?
>> I'm sorry, Commissioner. I did not hear the question. I was in an elevator.
>> the question is this: we're looking at local alternative funding sources for our mobility transportation projects, and -- but it's divided up into regional and probably local aspects. My question to joe was that there are other counties within the state of Texas that are approaching this as we are by making suggestions or taking forward what we're thinking our legislative -- Travis County's legislative delegation should be doing. Even though it has regional impact and also local impact, I'm just wondering if everybody is doing the same thing on this particular regard for our alternative --
>> you're talking about with respect to making recommendations about legislation for local options for mobility?
>> yes.
>> as I understand it, a number of the urban counties are working on these initiatives. I know bexar county is. I know dallas county is. I believe harris county is. I believe, Commissioner, that in most of the conversations going on about this are occurring within those counties as part of a regional discussion with their metropolitan planning organization. So I can -- I'll be glad to check and get back with you about it, Commissioner, but my understanding is, for instance, that bexar county is discussing local option funding of transportation projects with the other members of its mpo and trying to come to some kind of maybe consensus or decision or at least recommendation about how they view those issues. That -- as I understand it, the conversation that we're referencing here is going on primarily with groups in the Austin area. I don't know how much the involvement of other counties is at this point with respect to this discussion. Again, I do know that dallas county is going through a similar process and I don't know what the status of that is. I'd be glad to report back to the court on that.
>> and do we have certain time line to break this down and submit what we see, I guess, as far as a local situation? Is there a time line that we need to work within to make sure that we get all the adequate information over there to the delegation legislatively? To deal with this? Is there a time line as far as that and what is that time?
>> the reason why mr. Gieselman and I wanted to bring this to the court's attention is that there was actually a meeting this morning at which there was a discussion of these options by the local group informal coalition that's trying to discuss this at the local level. The reason they're meeting this morning is because as I understand it they have a meeting sometime within the next week or so with senator watson and one of the topics they want to discuss with him is the issue of transportation mobility funding options, local funding options for transportation. So I believe that the urgency, if any, was that senator watson is asking for input from people concerned with mobility, transportation issues in this area about what might be some local option fundings and what they would recommend, if you will. So I believe that the timing of this request today is dictated by senator watson wanting to meet with a group next week.
>> my last question, and I've probably got a bunch others, but we'll do it some other time, is the control of who gets what. Will there be -- and I really don't know how this is going to work. I guess they over there are wanting to get input and then they'll divide it up in a procedural type, whatever they end up doing over at the state legislature. But my concern is making sure that however they divvy this up, if it's a regional type situation and we are a part of that region, how do we get what's coming to us because we're in that region? If it's a local situation, then of course we may have a little more control of a local parameters, local setting to make sure that we get what's coming to Travis County. But again, I'm concerned about the regional setting because sometimes in regional settings we kind of lose control because we don't have the numbers to make sure that whatever is brought down as far as the funding is concerned, it would have to be -- it might be another little power struggle.
>> yes, sir.
>> so I'm concerned about that greatly.
>> let me try to respond, Commissioner, with two thoughts, I guess. One is I think they're still in the process of thinking through and drafting the legislation. Senator watson may end up filing a bill. Other members of the senate or house may end up filing bills that take a different approach. So I don't think there's anything (indiscernible) there about how in terms of -- if we created this money, how would it be spent? How would make those decisions? Of course, though, the only entities that can create these -- as I understand it, the only entities that can create some of these local options are governmental entities like a county or a city. That is to say, if we decide to do a certain kind of a tax or fee, that would be voted on by the Commissioners court, say, in Travis County. Voted on by the Commissioners court and submitted to the voters in Travis County as the local option. And I presume that the Commissioners court could choose to dedicate that revenue, maybe within the context of some kind of overall regional transportation plan, but to projects say only in Travis County. I don't really know, but I assume that all that is going to be worked out in the process. But obviously as I understand it, and I'll let the other members of the court correct me if I'm wrong. Campo, for instance, doesn't have independent taxing authority or independent authority to ask the resident of the county or the region or anybody else to pay additional fees or taxes. So it would have to be Travis County that actually says, we want to take one of these mobility fees and we want to charge it within Travis County and we will ask the voters to approve that and we will dedicate that to this category of projects. And I assume that you would -- that the court would have quite a bit of oversight for that.
>> right. But my example and maybe I should have put it by example. An example of vehicle registration. Would that just be within the Travis County or would the vehicle increase as far as the vehicle registration, per se, would that be statewide? Of course, that vehicle registration all over the state, but I'm just wondering how would -- so I'm just throwing things out that may be state have input on as far as all across the state of Texas and just trying to break it down to the smallest component so it could be better understood before we, you know, do some things here.
>> concept actually what we're talking about here and what senator watson is interested in is the idea of local options -- local option funding for transportation and mobility projects decided locally on a county by county, city by city basis. So there may be some discussion of increasing, for instance, the vehicle registration fee for the state in order to fund more transportation, but that's separate from this. That will be decided in the budget process.
>> Commissioner huebner has a question.
>> do we know who the other local interest groups are that are participating in this?
>> kathleen fairier here and she can probably elaborate on who all is part of that commission.
>> we've joined with some other organizations across central Texas to address your question, including the greater Austin -- greater Austin cham per of commerce, the greater Austin hispanic chamber, the downtown Austin alliance, the alate-breaking alr public transportation, the Austin area research organization, the capital area transportation coalition, and the environmental defense fund. Thus far.
>> did you mention the greater Austin chamber of commerce?
>> I did.
>> and they are regional. They don't just represent Travis County. They're all over the place.
>> that's correct.
>> that's why I keep pointing to the regional as spec and see what kind of impact. Even though we localize it, there is a component of regional that keeps popping up, and that's why I'm posing the questions as I'm posing them, kind of fleshing out at least so they'll know exactly where we are and where we're coming from, local versus regional or a combination of both. That's what I'm trying to drag out.
>> well, in so many of the transportation issues that we're trying to address, the mobility issues, the solutions would be founded more at a regional level.
>> exactly. Exactly.
>> so what's -- what has wica asked us to do, if anything?
>> at this point we're not asking for anything, but we visited with some of you individually to let you know that the local option funding proposal was being circulated. We've seen proposals from other major participation areas of the state and we wanted to make sure that central Texas wasn't left behind. We think that the best approach is not to ask for a specific funding tool, but to allow locality to choose from a menu of local fees and taxes. And that we want to make sure that we maintain control of that revenue and not ask the legislature to choose what it is that we will be using as a revenue razor and then tell us how to spend it.
>> well, before senator watson filed a bill for Austin Travis County, I guess we would see the language, right?
>> we certainly will ask him for that.
>> the problem with the legislature is you go with your own language, you never know what language will be considered two month later.
>> yes, sir.
>> so I would think that the governmental entities that might be impacted would be conferred with, consulted up front.
>> another approach, I think, because this will be very fluid and there would be a lot of moving parts. I mean, all of Texas is going to be engaged in this issue, is to adopt principles. Travis County principles within which dietz and our legislative consultant with discuss within those principles. So it will be a moving target, even one legislator's ideas will be affected by others over there. I have attempted to put out some draft principles for the court to consider that may help guide our consultant and dietz when they do engage with reca or any particular legislator.
>> I think we should understand that there are a number of legislators who are very interested in this issue. They're hearing from their constituents that transportation funding is a dire situation and they're part of the state, so there are a lot of folks already looking at this at the capitol. And some bills have been introduced already and some are pending in leg council. So I think the approach shouldn't be just about helping Travis County, but being able to work with other parts of the state and focusing on metropolitan or urban areas. Working together.
>> so do we have your principles?
>> yes. They are the second page of my memo.
>> increased state and local transportation funding?
>> tnr proposed Travis County principles. Let me go ahead and articulate what those are. And I'm not presuming the court agrees with these. I'm just laying them out. The first is that it be user based. That we would prefer something, a transportation funding source that is leveed on users of the transportation system or source that generates the traffic as opposed to a general levee on population or property owners. If it were user based as opposed to property based. The second principle is there would be a nexus in proportion to the use. That the fees that arely that ae levied should tie back to what creates the travel command and that it be in proportion to the travel demand or use of the system. This certainly I think -- when I'm thinking of this it had more to do with the development impact fees. This is a principle of the u.s. Supreme court with regard to any impact fee applied to development. It has to meet these two tests, that it's got a nexus and that it's proportional. So we'd like to stay within those two boundaries. The third principle is that of mobility. A transportation funding can be used for all sort of purposes, but the need here in central Texas is for additional capacity in the system mobility to get people to and from, not necessarily to -- for local access, local streets. We need arterial roadways. We need fixed transit. We need highway improvements. We don't necessarily need additional money for maintaining the current system, so the focus should be on additional dollars for mobility. The next principle is that it in fact does increase transportation funding, that there's a net increase in funding, and this is not merely a substitution for an existing source. So at the end of the day we ought to see a real increase in funding. And finally, the principle of efficiency and accountability that the court would be on record as wanting an efficient collection of that staks allocation and use. By and large, no new bureaucracies. Taxation with representation, low agency or administrative cost and expedition implementation of transportation projects that are funded with these new sources.
>> joe, in regard to these principles, the first two, the user base and the nexus in proportion to use bullets, those first two bullets would apply equally to both -- and I'm about to say two things that ignite great controversy in this community. And they are tools that set these two bullets. They are not the bullets themselves and I want to make that clear. These two bullets would apply equally to tolls or to impact fees. Both of them are user fees. Am I correct about your intention there, that those bullets would apply to both?
>> yes. And it's basically an economic principle just like you would go out and buy a pair of shoes, you know, it's a -- basically, part of the issue we have is that the cost of transportation is not often -- not always reflected in the price you pay for it. And because of that, there's no constraint to travel anymore. So we have an abundance of demand and we're behind on the supply. We've got to bring those in balance. The only way you bring those in balance is by having some proportional that you in fact pay more the more you use it. And that's what, number one, its user and it's proportional to the use being made. That's a somewhat -- an effort to get our supply and demand in balance.
>> okay.
>> is there anything newsworthy happening at this morning's meeting that we should know about?
>> no.
>> [ laughter ] it was clear to us that we do not want to advocate for a particular local option or fee. That we want those to be an open process. We do not want the legislature to determine that for us. We want it open to local elected officials and the community members to choose that. It was also clear that we recognized that there are a lot of implications when you decide geographic boundaries to be impacted by these local fees and taxes, when you decide the governance of how money is allocated or spent, and we want that to be more flexible for a locality to decide the structure and the use that's best for them. It was also clear that we want to make sure that they don't limit the types of mobility that could be addressed for these sums. That we want it to be multimodal. That we want it to be distributed efficiently and equitably in that it's very important that it not just create another layer of bureaucracy. It's not costly for any government entity to implement these.
>> as far as accountability, I think joe, you brought up accountability. And I think elected officials should be accountable. I think it will not be in our best interest for something of this magnitude to hide somewhere or reside -- let me say reside somewhere whereby whatever ends up happening, things are done and no one is accountable. Another type of government thing. And I don't think we're going there, but I'm just laying that out. Next question is do we have any idea of what the other urban counties are submitting as far as some of the local option stuff? Other than what we're doing, is there any way that we could compare or either see that they're doing so we won't get left out maybe in some things that we could be implementing or could be asking for and we're not doing. That question. Soco you answer that for me?
>> if I could speak to that, Commissioner. I will be glad to follow up with the conference of urban counties and even to call around to some of the big counties and see if they can just -- whatever information they have about that, I'll see if I can put all that together, get a packet together for the members of the court and get that out to you in the next couple of days.
>> and of course on the user fees, we looked at some of the principles, joe, and I know you mentioned the user-backed fees. Of course I'm going to continue to stay on record that I definitely do not support toll roads, period, within Travis County, per se, that have not been approved by the voters of Travis County. So for the record, I want to make sure everyone knows that I'm going to stay consistent on that. So thank you.
>> Commissioner, if I could just add that I think voter approval is a very strong component of many of the proposals that are circulating thus far, and that that's certainly something that our group supports.
>> supports that. Thank you. Hooray for you. Thank you.
>> katy, also I wanted to ask you, have you had a chance to review the principles that were -- that are being offered up by mr. Gieselman?
>> I haven't in advance, but I can speak to them based on what I've just heard.
>> please do.
>> okay. That I think that those are very strong. And that given the way the legislature works that you're much wiser to stay fluid and set out basically boxes of action so that you can respond in kind because things move so quickly and little tweaks to legislation could alter it dramatically, but now you understand what you're looking for and you've given guidance to these and many of your other contract employees about how to move forward.
>> how does your organization feel about on the portion of the statement regarding sources that generate the use or sources that generate the travel demand?
>> well, I think that those are the best approaches. I'm not going to speak for other organizations beyond the real estate council of Austin at this point.
>> so would real estate councilf Austin be up for the impact fee.
>> I believe that joe addressed the user based fees, not property based fees. And we also discuss understand our coalition not fees, but to generate the most capital. We would want to make sure when we look at that miss lis of fees that we're looking at fees and taxes that generate the most revenue.
>> so if am I correct in assuming that reca is only in favor of revenue generators on individual users rather than revenue generators so business interests?
>> I don't know whether that's fair to say either. At this point we are not wanting any options off the table, that we want all possible revenue generators.
>> I'm glad to hear that because I do feel that we are in a circumstance now that requires all of us to come to the table, discuss all of the options for funding our transportation needs and also have an honest discussion about real participation.
>> yes.
>> I would be interested and I have spoken with reca on a number of occasions regarding impact fees and received a deaf ening silence at each opportunity to discuss that. I think it is something that we have to talk about. We cannot leave that off the table.
>> right. But we would prefer that that be discussed --
>> is that on the table?
>> no. We prefer that that be discussed and decide understand a local area and the legislature not decide that for us.
>> I also want to express a concern about the local option aspect. While I think that it's absolutely paramount from a practical standpoint that we include the local option aspect, I am concerned about going down a road that makes us look like california, that we get into a policy setting by referendum circumstance. For instance, toll roads, which I am not hugely keen on in their current -- in our current practice of toll roads. I'm not 100% against toll roads per se. They can be implemented in good a ways f that had been put through a referendum in the same way that is being considered for these particular taxing options, we would not have any toll roads in Travis County. And there's no doubt in anybody's mind I don't think that that would have been the result. So I want to make sure that we're all -- in terms of discussing these principles as well as the implementation strategies for these principles for these tools underneath these principles that we are not cherry picking for what we like because they serve our ox. I think we are going to have to consider the real possibility of everyone's ox getting cut up. So I would --
>> I think that these principles are very interesting. I'd like another week to review the principles and I would also like us to consider in terms of the statement that we already have out there in the universe, exhibit b, that the fifth bullet, the establishing of a local option transportation tax, currently is only contemplates a local option gas tax, but I think perhaps we should review the menu of items against the principles that we're considering and contemplate adding examples of local option transportation taxes that we find most attractive.
>> Commissioner huber?
>> if we look at this list we have of the exhibit a, the list, as I understand it's reca's list of suggested.
>> yes. It's a two-page document so let me clarify which list you're looking at. There are some big pots of state revenue that we want to make sure that we're not letting txdot and the legislature off the hook. We want to encourage continued funding for those. Then the bulleted list of different local options, local option taxes and fees, that is not our list. This is a list that's been culled -- not culled, collected from proposals across the state from major metropolitan areas. So other localities are discussing these and so that's what we wanted to bring to your attention. But we don't want anything off the table.
>> are there any others, possible funding sources that have come up in the meeting this morning or from some of the other local participants that aren't on this list?
>> another state revenue being discussed is indexing the gas tax. And early conversations have let us to believe that that wasn't going anywhere, but that could be added to this. As a statewide approach, more so than a local option.
>> thank you.
>> mr. Echstein, why don't we contact senator watson's office and see what he would like to see from Travis County regarding transportation issues this session?
>> yes, sir.
>> and let's find out from cuec what options are on its list.
>> and are being pursued by the other counties?
>> thank y'all very much. This has been a fascinating discussion.
>> thank you.
>> thank y'all.
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, January 27, 2009 2:03 PM