Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, January 4, 2011,
Item 7
7 is to consider and take appropriate action on the following requests: a, transportation and natural resources, t.n.r., to initiate and manage the preparation of a 2011 bond referendum.
b, t.n.r.
to prepare a draft prior or tied list of potential bond projects for consideration by a citizens bond advisory committee and the court.
and c, authorize t.n.r.
to pursue commitments from public and/or private entities for partnering on projects utilizing 2011 guidelines for public-private partnerships for transportation projects.
and I think our goal is to have a fruitful discussion today and have it back on the court's agenda for action next Tuesday.
>> that will be fine, judge.
good morning, steven ellis, t.n.r.
what we would like to get moving forward with today with y'all's approval is preparation for a 2011, November 2011 bond referendum.
we've been talking about it for the last couple of years now.
t.n.r.
has in the past taken the lead on preparing for bond referendums in '84, '97, 0001 and '05.
most of our efforts are committed to developing projects in the transportation and parks arena.
we have coordinated with folks like facilities and gone forward jointly with bond referendums, they with their own propositions.
we do not address that in this memo but it is something the court may want to insert a how to you all connect those two efforts together.
so we would like to move forward.
in preparing for this referendum, we have an awful lot of work to do and the sooner we get started.
we've already drafted a list of projects, road, bridge, drainage, parks, green space, and so forth.
you should have a revised list that came out on the 30th, so you should be looking at a list that's dated December 30 on the last page.
the categories are road caps capacity, roadway safety, bridge replacement, park improvements.
we've added a category for bicycle safety projects and pedestrian safety projects.
right now the total is about $550 million worth of improvements.
we've been advised by p.b.o.
that we need to pare that down to $200 million.
included also on that list are potential past refinance projects with txdot.
so to reduce this down is going to take a good amount of effort.
I would also like to emphasize it is a very dynamic list.
can always think of changes that need to be made.
we would like to have it as close to perfect as we can get it by the time bond advisory committee is put into place so they don't have to keep adding to the list as they go through their process.
and that is another thing we would ask the court to do to initiate that committee as soon as you can.
and finally --
>> when you like that -- when would be a good time frame to get that committee up and gear?
we looked at that -- this last bond election where we had the advisory committee, because I知 willing to, you know, talk to the folks I need to talk to as far as who I think should serve, but again, it's all in the -- it's in the essence of timeliness in making sure they have enough time, the public have enough time to review the projects and, of course, at that time make recommendations back to the court.
>> right.
>> of course, this is a hefty amount of money.
in fact, it would be more than any bond initiative that we've ever dealt with in the past, but, of course, the way I知 looking at this, there appears to be need with the growth potential where we need things and roads in place to take care of a lot of things.
I知 quite sure the citizens are very well affair that we did look at past financing efforts the last time because you mentioned past financing and we did apply application-wise and about that time was when $300 million available to the state to apply to different projects.
of course, even though we applied does not mean you'll get it.
and, of course, we did not get any of that money of the $300 million that was made available in the last sources of funding for pass-through financing.
of course, the voters will decide eventually what they want to pay for and what they don't want to pay for and that's just as simple as that, but I need to be getting geared up not only on the projects -- and I looked at this list, steve, of the particular projects on year and may need some modifications.
I know this is a draft and moving target and since it is a moving target, I notice some things that need to be maybe modified to some degree.
one of them was even boundary sharing with one of the roads in precinct 1 and 2, for example, that need to be maybe specified as 1/2 or -- because of the precinct.
but other things such as wild horse collector, need to be explained as more.
so I just want to make sure those things that I知 bringing up now that they are included and whenever we bring this back before it goes out to the public for their review.
and, of course, the timeliness of when we can get out and make sure that the folks out there understand that this is a bond initiative and hopefully we'll have something on the final phase of this as far as the balance is concerned of the referendum is something that they will support.
so this is just part of how we get there.
but I just want to lay those things out as far as those changes that may be made to this existing draft of these projects, what we're really looking at.
so -- and it is a lot of money, but, of course, hopefully some of it can be -- be staggered or either phased in a lot of these things because that's probably the way some of these things will have to happen anyway.
>> right.
Commissioner, to answer your first question, when would be an ideal time to have this committee ready to start looking at projects, it's kind of tied to part 3 of this agenda request.
I want to have some conversations with different entities, public and private, about some of the projects listed on this draft list.
whether or not we go forward is going to be dependent upon how much they are willing to commit themselves to put into the project.
either to right-of-way dead indications or financial or however means that they have available to them.
and so rather than give the citizens at large committee a dozen or more projects that we're not sure whether or not we're going to have a partner, I壇 like to get through that conversation anyhow and get a feel for yes, they are going to be there or not before handing it to that committee.
I think all of that and fine tuning this as much as we can.
it's going to change probably throughout the entire year up until the time it's voted on.
I think within the next 30 days, that would give me time to meet with -- individually with the court members also because I haven't had a chance to do that, talk about projects that are important to you, and then have these conversations with, like, the city of Austin, city of Lakeway and the developers in the manor area.
we've been talking about having them help us fund regionally significant projects to serve all the developments proposed in that area, have that conversation to tie something down as best we can and then sit down and give the committee projects that have a real chance of making it through the process.
they are still going to have a hard time narrowing down, but I don't want to give them any more projects that don't have a chance after conversing with these other entities.
>> yes.
>> this is a great start and I知 so glad that this item came today.
it's good to see us being so proactive on this and following a well-honed path that has worked well for news the past.
I have two things I would like us to work on over the next month and one dove tails with what you were just saying, steve, and that is the -- a concerted effort to go out into the private community to see to what degree they are willing to participate financially and how that financial participation might pan out.
we've been discussing some, steve, joe, tom nuckols, rodney rhoades, several others about special financing mechanisms, and I think probably we should have some options brought to the court for consideration as part of that conversation with the privates.
so I壇 like to see us work on that some more over the next month.
and then the second thing that I wanted to mention with regard to this backup is because we have some large building projects like the courthouse, I know that this will occur, but we should probably memorialize it, the relationship with the central business district planning effort and the planning and budget office which is in a role that they have not been in in the past with regard to our bond initiatives.
so we need to, I think, commit to paper how that relationship will work in terms of speaker spearheading and staffing the bond committee activity.
because in the past there was not such large capital improvement projects involved; am I correct about that?
>> there actually have been and we've relied on I guess the facilities department to represent that.
in the 2005 there was actually a separate subcommittee of the citizens group that dealt just with the facilities projects.
and so the issue is trying to get these things costed out so you've got some reliable dollar values associated with each project, that they get thoroughly vetted.
and one of the roles of the citizen committee is make sure we've got the right mix of projects and that they are going to resonate with the voters.
otherwise there's no reason to do this.
we don't get a successful election.
so part of this is making sure whatever the project is, wherever the origin is, whether it's transportation, natural resources, facilities, that it gets fully represented and gets vetted in through public meetings, public hearings.
we're asked about the numbers, where did they come from, what are they going to pay for and so at the end when you finally get your final list in August recommended by the citizen committee, it's gone through all the processes.
and knock on wood we've never had a failed -- when we've had one proposition fail, but almost every time we've gone out to voters they've approved our requests in part because of the process we went through.
so I think it is important if p.b.o.
is spearheading the -- probably the larger share of this election that -- that they be up right here in the process and represent those projects before the citizens committee, take them on tours, whatever it takes to make sure that we're all transparent, everybody knows what they are getting.
>> good counsel.
good counsel.
and to that point I think also with regard to special financing mechanisms, that also will likely come into play with some of these building projects as well.
so in a slightly different way.
so we've got our work cut out for us in terms of answering some questions in advance of the bond, but -- but y'all rock.
>> [laughter]
>> that doesn't mean that, you know, when we dealt with the 2005 bond election, if you recall back then we had something called the people which is still around, we still deal with the public-private agreement, and we've had to do an amendment here or there to it, but that vehicle, of course, will still be utilized to the extent whereby the private sector and also the public sector, with the approval of the voters, and I mean the voters, they see this and, of course, they were willing to bite into that aspect of it then and, of course, p.b.o.
at that time was sitting at the table also during the time especially to let us know the danger zone as far as indebtedness, as they stated back then crossing the white line.
of course, we've looked at debt ratio and a whole lot of the other things that we need to look at, but at the end of the day, and I think Commissioner Eckhardt hit something very significant, at the end of the day looking at the other initiatives, funding initiatives that we had available to us even if we look at the people, which is another funding type initiative whereby the private sector is coming up to the table and saying yes, we will participate in this also if we can donate, what 50%, whatever the mechanism is.
so I think all these moving parts in twos are very important and we've built that kind of relationship and I guess we're having to add to it.
but I want to make sure that flavor is still there because when we do go out to the public, I want to make sure that they understand that again and help us in this particular regard.
they may vote everything down and say no, but I don't think so because of the need for a lot of this -- these projects and folks are hollering and screaming about relief, traffic relief and they need alternatives, they need way out and we need to help facilitate that.
thank you.
>> Commissioner Huber.
>> thanks again for all the hard work.
a lot of your long thought process and history that's brought this to this point.
I would just like to say that I think we're looking at a unique set of circumstances this year that we perhaps haven't encountered in recent years given the economy and the opportunity to take advantage of the intrastraight and things like that for some of our facilities programs which if -- puts big numbers out there in front of the public for a bond election, and with the transportation funding as it is right now and limited from other sources, I知 concerned about the high dollar numbers we may be looking at for this bond election and the voter tolerance on it.
and I really think that we need to build off of the actual process that y'all have put in place, but we need to be mindful that we may need to continue to tweak that process as we go through this process this year for the fall bond election.
and I would really like to see a very strong internal effort between both p.b.o.
and t.n.r.
because I think that we need to be very mindful of the projects, not just real estate, not just parks, open space and transportation, but we need to be very mindful of how that's going to impact our future budgets and the tax rates and things like that.
so I just -- I just think that we've got a great record, but we're going to need to be mindful of the tweaking because of the circumstances this year with the economy and tax -- tax rate issues, that we need a strong internal team.
working along those lines.
>> I agree, Commissioner.
one other side bar note, you are all away the city of Austin had a successful bond referendum this last fall and we're hearing that they are going to go out again, not in 2011 but 2012, so we're kind of sandwiched between them which is good for us, but we need to make 2011 work for us.
>> that's another -- not just the roads and -- partnering or public-private partnerships, but we need to look at the facilities as well along those lines because that's a creative side that needs more exploration.
>> I would just note on item c of this, tom and I did work up some modifications to the guidelines for public-privates.
we had some lessons learned over the last few years and we're hoping that that will -- this will help eliminate some of the problems that we experienced.
>> mr. Priest.
>> okay, judge, I did want to comment on this.
I do think that safety should be a priority on this package and I know that since this court turned around it's engineering work on hamilton pool road, there's been two deaths on that road since you turned that down.
also we've had situations where people have come to this court repeatedly asking for southwest 45 to be built.
and I would like the court to make a mechanism maybe through t.n.r.
or maybe through some county website where people could cast their vote, so to speak, prior to this.
potential projects that the county citizens feel such as southwest 45 or hamilton pool road or Austin colony.
we had a situation out there at Austin colony and we're hearing it's going to be a $500 million bond package now cut down to 200 million.
we're also looking at projects such as the one at the Austin colony area, one of the fixes out there looking to be 100 million.
of course, not all this money would be spent, but public-private partnerships translated usually means very poor financing screams whether it's toll roads or pass-through financing.
but I did want the court to be aware that there were citizens, and I was one of them, that attended txdot open house meetings and fought very vigorously to defeat the 973 pass-through financing as well as the other pass-through financing projects, and we've been working at the capitol and I think it will be at a level never seen before since '95 and some of the other times that bond elections have failed.
and I view that if the county doesn't take safety into consideration and realize that public-private partnerships are not good financing opportunities, we see with formula one or whatever the case may be, or that they would take the voters previous votes cast for southwest 45 and what you know already from the voters of what we've requested and have requested repeatedly, and this right-of-way has been purchased by txdot and I would like you all to formally address that.
>> thank you, mr. Priest.
>> mr. Priest, you brought up a point and you made something reference to Austin college and I want to maybe update you on what has actually happened as far as bringing some relief there.
we have spent money to get another left turn lane coming out of Austin college on to 969.
right about
>> [indiscernible] closer we got txdot participation with us also.
we also got txdot to get involved in synchronizing the traffic signals at the particular intersection.
and most of the problem in that particular area was two new schools have been built.
one is going to open up -- the new one is going to open up in August and, of course, one of already there and these two schools have generated a lot of traffic out of Austin colony whereby bus services from the -- from the independent school district out at del valle is not able to accommodate to take bus service to this new school.
so, of course, you get traffic congestion in that particular situation.
but what we're doing in the interim is that we have created a left turn, an additional left turn lane to get folks in and out of there, synchronize the lights, and hopefully if the votes do decide to look at one of the alternatives on this particular project, and that is to probably get gilbert lane extension or director from Austin colony whereby they are going to sandifer which will serve those schools and have maybe like a turn-around situation where you don't have to be confronted.
because there is a traffic light at 969 which is another situation.
we have been out there, investigated the best we possibly can to bring those type of traffic relief situations out there.
of course, this is a big picture, the pass-through financing on 969 for straightening that road out, that's another project to mention that.
those are some relief factors that we're trying to give immediate resolve to.
so some of these things that you mentioned are already in the works and I知 glad you brought that point up.
>> I want to thank you for all your hard work.
I致e been way ahead of the bell curve on this and participated in a lot of what's discussed and been asking the txdot and city of Austin and Travis County to synchronize lights for ten years and it's on record.
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> can you recall how long the committee had to do its work last time?
>> we started in January.
they finished in August.
roughly.
>> it was a while, judge.
>> seven months?
>> uh-huh.
there was a 15-member committee.
three appointed by each member of the court.
>> remind me how many public-private partnerships we had listed on the bond issue and how many of those did we actually complete?
>> in '05 there were six.
we've completed -- let's see.
totally completed one.
partially completed one.
and the other ones are in design phase.
>> but we're still confident the other four will get done at some point?
>> I am, judge.
the problem has been the development side getting financing in this market.
and we are seeing some signs of improvement, but also in a couple of cases we're -- we're going to change the way the contract has been arranged.
we'll be taking the lead from them because we just don't want to wait too much longer.
so it was they would take the lead and we would reimburse them, now we're going to take the lead on at least two of them and get the thing moving.
>> okay, and putting together our recommended or proposed public-private partnership criteria, did we get input from --
>> for this next -- I have not presented this to the development community yet.
just tom and I have put together our thoughts on it.
we will be discussing with them some significant changes.
first, most importantly, is them securing their financing as soon as possible rather than waiting until a project is ready to construction, which is one we post fiscal, we would want the money sooner than that so if another downturn in the economy continues we can still continue on with the project.
>> okay, so are we expecting them to demonstrate the ability to perform before we go to voters?
>> I would like to do that, yes.
we have a few -- not as many projects, I don't have as many projects that are public-private this time as what was used in '05, first of all.
there's only two that I really feel strongly about.
there may be others that approach us, but given the mixed results that we had with the '05, I知 not willing to commit to put the same dollar amount to it for 2011.
I just -- I don't think that will be wise until we can straighten out some of these issues that we had this last time.
and when tom and I have conversations with them, then depending on their responses, we may not have public-privates for a couple of projects.
but we really feel strongly that some changes need to be made in the guidelines.
>> last time did we put together a list of backgrounds that we would like to see represented?
on the citizens advisory committee?
>> that, I don't know, judge.
>> yes, we did.
we tried to get -- as always, a good cross-section of the community both geographically and buy into.
and I think that's important.
>> seems to me we need to do that this time.
don't want a committee of folk with the same background.
>> we did also stipulate that anybody appointed to a committee could not gain from the project.
>> right.
>> so -- and so I know quite often there will be consultants and consulting engineers and contractors that might want to sit on it, but with that provision that you can't then get a contract with a c.i.p.
project after the election, it whittled down the list pretty quick.
so there can't be any special interest appointed.
>> okay.
seems to me that we ought to -- we ought to do the best we can to reduce this list of transportation projects from the 500 million range down to about at least I壇 say half that number if we can.
>> I can do that.
yes.
>> we could also put priorities on it.
I think clearly those projects are of equal priority.
>> part of that upheaval as far as some of those projects you mentioned earlier as far as the people is concerned, private partner, public partnership agreements, we went in there and there were some folks on board initially, but during the course of the year or so that they end up selling the property to another owner.
so never has been as clean as possible because the sale of the property to someone else, which takes time away from the -- you have to go back and start dealing with the new owners as due with the old owner so under this particular concept.
so it was projects -- some of the projects ran into that type of situation.
>> okay.
>> as far as some of the -- to add to what steve had brought up.
>> well, the way this is set out, if we visualize a road that's a public-private partnership candidate, we would expect the private partners to dedicate 100% of the right-of-way.
>> correct.
>> and if this road has an owner on one side who is motivated to get the project done and is willing to dedicate, but an owner on the other side who could care less, that project simply does not qualify.
>> well, in '05, judge, we allowed for a situation like that.
the bulk of the right-of-way had to be in the control of the developer -- or the bulk of the property had to be in control of the developer we entered into an agreement with.
but there were some cases that you had shorter segments that we agreed for any property outside the control of the developer, we would go acquire.
and we set aside money in the bond referendum to do just that.
>> but the proposed criteria for the next bond election eliminates that possibility rye requiring 100% --
>> I would like to do that, but how realistic it is is another issue.
some folks just don't want a road, a new road in their backyard.
they could derail the entire thing by not wanting to even talk to us.
I壇 love to have 100%.
>> there's more than one way to deal with that issue.
if you had anticipated a road would be along the boundary between two different landowners, and one is willing to participate and one isn't, there's always the possibility of rerouting the road so that it's all on the land of the willing landowner.
and then you've got everything paid for.
now, the unwilling landowner is going to lose a lot of value in their property from having a road relocated where they don't have any frontage, but that's the price of not being willing to participate.
so on any one of these problems, there's a number of possible different solutions to whatever issues there might be, and we've sort of left these guidelines a little flexible thinking that we'll get a lot of different types of proposals from landowners that may look slightly different.
there may not be a one size fits all model for the public-private projects, but we think that's a good thing.
you know, maybe a landowner will come in and propose a model for one project that sort of sets the standards, and we can then expect all the other landowners to live up to that model.
so we think, you know, the guidelines we're going to have to apply differently to different circumstances.
but we have tried to build in a lot of things to avoid some of the problems we had last time.
and judge, we do require -- you mentioned this awhile ago.
we do say we have to have written commitments from all relevant private parties before the Commissioners court vote to call the bond election.
so they have -- they do have to give us a written commitment up front before it goes on the ballot.
>> I saw that.
>> what we're speaking of are public-private partnerships for roadway developments.
what you are likely to see in 2011 are facilities and you might also see them in parks and open spaces.
and we do not have any policies at this point that we would put together how we would want those public-private partnerships to work.
>> well, let's look at the charge -- the criteria, rather, let's look at number 5 between now and next week.
the way it's stated there, we require dedication.
or outright acquisition.
I can live with that, but if it's one of our criteria, then we ought to stick to it.
I mean, I would -- last time, I don't know whether it's true or not, but we were accused of being a little more lenient with some private partners than with others.
so whatever our criteria are, we need to make sure that we apply them across the board.
and the time to consider whether or not we need them included would be prior to adoption.
that's my only pointed there.
the other thing is I think we say that on for construction, if the private partner chooses the contractor, there has to be competition for it.
>> that's true, yes.
>> but we kind of say -- we sort of leave it at that.
and my question was what kind of competition.
I mean, are we saying construction bids?
are we saying just -- I mean, are we to approve the competitive or competition criteria?
see what I知 saying?
I mean, how do we --
>> what we've advised them in the past is they need to try to follow as closely as they can the bidding process and award process; otherwise the court may reject us going forward with it.
so I can think of two where they took the lead on bidding it, and in one case they advertised in the newspaper and received multiple bids and went through the same process essentially that we do except that they awarded it.
in another case the developer contacted three or four contractors that he knew in the region that he knew could do the project and solicited from them and selected the lowest bid.
and we have the ability in our contract to approve whoever the award contract is.
so we could write into the guidelines that they have to follow the same process that the county uses, advertising and soliciting bids openly.
>> it strikes me the language should be more specific if we are to apply it.
>> I agree.
there are other changes we would like to make as well.
>> okay.
anything else?
>> I just have a procedural question on the bond advisory committee.
since I haven't been through this before and someone who is watching who may be interested in serving may wonder as well.
can you elaborate little on the bond committee comes up with a recommended list of projects, right?
does that then come to the court and the court approves or changes that list?
>> yes.
initially it's kind of a two-step process.
the county starts with a set of criteria.
a base criteria that says you don't get to first base unless these type of projects are included, after the staff views them.
and then the second step of weighted criteria that says of all the ones that got through the gate, here's how you would put priorities on them.
the staff then makes that list available to the citizens advisory committee.
we know going no how big the shoe is which is p.b.o.
saying here are the white lines, about 200 million for roads and parks, 300 million for facilities.
the citizens get that list, and they -- they challenge the county on whether or not those are the right list, but they are hearing at the same time from constituents throughout the county why didn't you put this in, why didn't you put that in.
they go out to public meetings and they are receiving input.
so they start modifying the list.
we get some cost estimates, put them in the list.
and at the end of the process is a public hearing.
and then they go through the process of whittling down the list for recommending to the Commissioners court.
the court gets that list and you somewhat go through the same process.
a little more abbreviated because you had the staff recommendation, the citizens, the public meetings.
and then the court itself amends that list and adopts the final recommendation.
so ultimately the court decides what goes to the voters, but it's based on quite a bit of homework before that point.
>> so does the list that comes out of the bond committee go through staff first or any changes before it comes to court?
>> we typically will update the cost estimates.
because that's so important to get the amount of money correct before it gets approved by the voters.
because after that, that's what you live with.
and so what may start at the beginning in January goes through several different iterations of cost estimating.
every time we get a new project, somebody has to do an estimate on it.
and then right before the list gets submitted to court, we'll do a final breakdown on the cost to make sure it's as reliable as we can get it.
so that's -- but typically we don't go in after the committee makes a recommendation and say you ought to amend this further.
that's what you have a citizens committee to do.
>> does -- will the bond committee get a notice or a copy back to them of the final list, the backup that will be going to the court?
>> yes.
>> will they have the opportunity to come and make any testimony relative to that?
>> they usually make the recommendation to the court.
they will -- their leadership will be here presenting that list to the court.
>> I知 asking this because I know of at least two people on the 2005 bond committee and I don't know what the problems were, but the list ultimately said to have come out of their committee had a road they thought had been voted off that.
I just want to be real clear we go through a specific process so they are aware what is coming to the court from their committee.
>> now, I can't say the list isn't amended by the Commissioners court and that final list may be different than that recommended by the citizens committee, but that's a prerogative of the court.
>> the committee is not necessarily unanimous on all the projects anyway.
>> no, they are not.
>> there is some division.
>> but the final list then that comes out of the committee, is that from a majority vote?
>> it is.
>> but the minority insists on making its point of view also.
I知 visualizing a majority report and also a minority report.
and so we're receiving both of them trying to weigh them and make the decision.
>> I think it's very important that we make that very clear to all the members of the advisory board, the process at the end, because I think there was confusion on the 2005 election.
>> judge, along -- Commissioner, have you finished?
okay.
along with that, I think we need -- and I知 just going back looking at some of the things that we have done in the past.
if we are going to ask the development community or whomever else to put stuff in writing before we take this to the voters, I think that same commitment in writing should be illustrated and put before the voters in writing prior to it going to them on the referendum that the governing or other governmental bodies that want to participate financially, along with the county in certain projects, that that be committed in writing also.
I think we need to have ironclad, bona fide information to let the voters know, no, this is just in the on Travis County, we have commitments from others who are just as willing to move forward with these particular bond projects, whatever they may be.
so I would like to also add that to the criterion, I guess, as far as looking for future commitments on projects.
because, of course, I think steve brought up something earlier, we may have the city of Austin involved in stuff, maybe cap metro, there may be several folks that may want to participate in some of these initiatives.
and if so, then we need to put tonight writing.
so I知 asking that to be part of the criterion because there are some projects here that will need additional support whether it be to assist Travis County in any bond initiatives.
>> there are several projects that cross through the city of Austin or Lakeway.
>> right.
right.
>> and we historically have not funded their part so that's what we need to have --
>> I don't want it to be interpreted to voters all of this is on Travis County.
look at them carrying all this.
no, I want to make sure that's also illustrated as far as in writing.
>> so last time we gave ourselves about two months for public education prior to the November election.
>> yes.
well, you had some statutory deadlines and September is around the time with glenn opal and lad patillo need to declare that they take to the a.g.s office.
typically in August is when we feel we need to get something done by the court in order for them to do all the due diligence they do before the November election.
>> so if we assume seven months is what the committee needs, then we ought to make sure that we complete our work in January so they can start meeting in February and have seven months.
>> at least.
>> to report back to us in August.
and do we need to check with lad and glenn opal between now and next Tuesday?
>> we'll put together a schedule that so we'll back up from the November deadline, give them all the time they would need to prepare the election order and get the necessary approvals, and then we'll work back from there to whatever that ends up being in January, which is your kind of drop dead for appointments.
>> okay.
so who will put together the list of backgrounds that we need represented?
>> we can do that.
there was a process initiated I think by sherri phlegming on a larger basis.
I don't know if that is something you would want us to follow.
>> very good suggestion.
sherri fleming and I believe roger jeffries are partnering on looking at a court-wide appointment processes for these committees and perhaps we should just keep that ball moving as far as -- now, of course, sherry's shop is the spot through which, for instance, mhmr appointments and health care district appointments are funneling.
but I think probably t.n.r.
or p.b.o.
or danny hobby in his new capacity over facilities may be the shop through which applications for -- for this committee should go.
that's an open question.
but the procedure is --
>> I don't know if that would help us.
>> but the procedure is being developed.
>> if we don't act on the background information next Tuesday, we are probably in trouble.
and this time we won't have an opportunity to do the invitations.
seems to me that if we know what backgrounds ought to be represented, the five of us need to get about the business of selecting individuals to recommend to the court.
and I知 recalling how we typically respond and operate.
I mean, I would give us two to three weeks to get it done after we get the backgrounds that ought to be represented.
>> why don't you let p.b.o.
and t.n.r.
get our heads together and we can bring something back next week.
>> and tough base with roger and sherri too.
I think that we ought to get by Friday afternoon an email that describes as best you can provide by then.
backgrounds that we ought to make sure are represented.
even if we don't get all of them.
if we say we need to make sure these are represented, it would help us, I think.
that way we're in a better position to take action on Tuesday the 11th.
>> may I also request in that preparation and this hopefully would double dip on that preparation to prepare a draft email blast that all five of us can utilize to our lists of interested individuals that state what the committee is, what the committee does, what the committee time frame -- time commitment is and so that we can all be sending out that blast and developing a list of interested people as soon as possible.
>> is that enough work between now and Friday or do you need more?
>> judge, there's one thing that we did do in the 2005 bond initiative when it came to dealing with the committee.
we -- we -- and I think we did it here and I don't know if it was done within the 15-member group and I want you to help me out.
dr. Akins chaired a lot of that during that time.
did we select dr. Akins to chair that committee or did they work that among themselves to get the chair of the committee?
do you recall?
>> I think we let the committee choose the chair.
>> okay.
I just couldn't recall.
I know doc akins was heading it up.
charles akins, during that time.
and I知 just -- is that what happened last time?
>> that's right, the committee selectstheir own chair.
>> thank you.
>> thank you all 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, January, 2011 12:12 PM
