Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, January 11, 2011,
Item 9
A.M. text will be provided as soon as possible.
Now let's call back to order the voting session of the Travis County Commissioners court.
we were in the middle of a discussion item number 9 prior to lunch.
we had considered parted of it and 9 is consider and take appropriate action on the following requests.
and the parts we have not considered are e, authorize t.n.r.
to develop guidelines for public-private partnerships for parks and natural areas, and I think we ought to approve this and authorize t.n.r.
to call upon county staff as appropriate for any assistance.
>> second.
>> and that's the motion, seconded by Commissioner Davis.
discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
in reverse order, d, 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.
last week we had an opportunity to look at draft language proposed by t.n.r., and I think what they did was use the 2005 draft that we used and tweaked that to the extent necessary for the draft.
discussion?
>> move approval, judge.
>> second.
>> a little bit of discussion on the draft.
>> okay.
>> and I知 sorry, this is the bullet pointed list.
>> in d, right.
>> I was wondering whether we ought not add governmental management and finance to the communication and organization.
is this bullet point a list?
>> no, that goes to -- that's the citizens advisory committee, I think.
>> [indiscernible]
>> there's one that says criteria for public-private partnerships for transportation projects.
that one.
>> never mind.
I知 good.
>> I think the way I understood the explanation this morning is if we approve this draft, then mr. Manila would interpret that as authorization to go ahead and touch base with some of the impacted persons and entities from which we should receive input.
and I guess put that in final shape.
>> right.
>> the motion is to approve the draft for that purpose?
>> yes, judge.
>> discussion?
we got a second to that.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
we're moving quickly so if I need to stop to take comments, you all make sure interject them or let me know.
>> judge, just a quick comment regarding -- I know you have taken action on f, but I wanted to give the court a quick update on some of the progress we've made as it relates to reviewing public-private partnerships and specifically as it relates to facilities.
we are in the process now of looking from a legal perspective at options.
>> okay.
>> we're also in the process of looking at any legislative needs, danny, susan and I have had numerous conversation regarding some strategy in terms of how we go forward.
mr. Hilly is working on some legal issues for us and with outside counsel as well and we'll be bringing that to you hopefully within the next few weeks specifically as pertains to the legal issues.
and then what we will do, judge, with your permission, is bring back next week a list of the facilities-related projects, and we provided that late in the day, I believe Friday or yesterday you received that.
and my apologize for the delay in getting that.
we were trying to finalize the list, but we'll bring that back for your approval next week for action.
>> okay.
>> and then any other items that we need to related to facilities.
have I missed anything?
>> that list had three projects on it.
we think that's complete?
>> it's directly related, judge, to how we're phasing in the facilities master planning efforts along with you'll notice the third item, the medical examiner, and danny and I have had numerous conversation throughout the last year or so regarding that particular facility.
and so we wanted to go ahead and incorporate it into the list this year for consideration for the bond study committees along with what we're considering to be phase 1 of the implementation of the master plan.
so that's why it's on that list.
>> and I also asked roger, he's been gone for the last several weeks, so I asked him this morning, I said we prepared the list.
is there anything on there that's missing?
he says there are about two or three items that I would like to put on the list since I致e been gone so there may be a few more.
>> let's make sure we have appropriate language to cover that at the agenda setting meeting tomorrow.
anything else?
moving up, b, designation department or manager to work with t.n.r.
I知 not sure what we meant by that.
>> I think there was some discussion last week about the need to have p.b.o.
involved in the process because of -- especially because of the economic downturn that we have and the need to stay on top from the very get go and the impact on potential taxes and budgets and everything else.
>> this was the bond advisory committee then.
>> uh-huh.
>> and we'll work hand in hand with danny on the facilities side as well to make sure that everybody is in the loop and coordinated as we move forward.
>> okay.
move approval.
>> second.
>> that's with p.b.o.
and really any of the other executive managers as necessary.
>> absolutely.
>> discussion?
>> I want us to be mindful of what judge dietz said.
I do have a concern that while our -- in previous years t.n.r.
ran this and ran this well.
that we do have an integrated list, as Commissioner Gomez said, and we don't go down a road where it's all transportation and we only give passing -- I know it's not even probable that we would only give passing notice to our facilities considering a very large ticket item is included in the bond, but I think that we do need a integrate approach.
>> one of the things that we did last week is after the Commissioners court meeting, we had a meeting with t.n.r.
regarding the coordination efforts and how because we recognized this is a little bit different animal than has been done in the past specifically with facilities, to make for sure that everyone is in the loop working off the same page, so to speak, and make sure that everyone has information at their disposal when asked either by Commissioners court or others as it relates to the facilities projects because they are much larger than has been historically the case.
and so one of the commitments from my office and one of the commitments that danny and I have talked about routinely is how we can make for sure that everybody is working together.
and the auditor is going to play a vital role in terms of it being the liaison for the district judges, for the courthouse project and so we want to make for sure she's in the loop on everything as we go forward eye think it's important for us to have everyone in the loop, but I do agree that we do need a command structure and it would be -- I would hate for us to develop a reputation of being a many-headed beast where it's difficult to get all the information from one single source.
so I believe t.n.r.
and steve manila should be that single source, I知 just saying there should be a robust collaboration and we could go with one person and with confidence know we would be getting the full picture and not just the t.n.r.
piece or just the facilities piece or just the district courts piece.
>> when we get beyond roads and open space and preserve parks, we expect t.n.r.
to work with the auditor, mr. Rhoades and mr. Hobby.
I would say the same ones we kind of highlighted in response on to f that we indicated would be appropriate to work with them on a and b.
>> I don't want to have to go to five separate people.
>> I don't want to have to go to five separate people, but we have a new manager in t.n.r.
and we have a unique set of circumstances this year in our economy and in our facility needs, and I think that it just might be wise to have a double team working real closely together this year.
keep each other informed so we only have to ask one of you would be my --
>> but I think this is another way to get the executive managers out of their silos.
there's always talk about those silos that everybody gets stuck in and the collaboration across the board is going to work well.
>> absolutely.
>> I値l get where we were before.
we don't have a motion, do we?
my motion would be on a and b that t.n.r.
would work with the three managers I just mentioned, miss pataro, mr. Rhoades and mr. Hobby as appropriate, and my anything is even as steve manila takes the lead, there will be questions about the medical examiner's office or civil courts building that he went dough.
so in that case he should be able to point that person to the one who nose it.
>> second.
>> so the expectation is that these four would in all probability have the information that's needed by anyone to take action, and if not then it should be on the court's agenda as soon as possible thereafter anyway.
>> judge?
>> yes, sir.
discussion of the motion?
>> judge, another concern, and I知 just kind of trying to do some forward thinking, when all of this is put together and we end up going to the different segments of the community discussing and hopefully encouraging whatever they -- you know, and things start dwindling down and this project is maybe not there and da, da, da, all the recommendations come into the Commissioners court and the final days of what we're doing here, what would be the availability of the person that we are charging with responsibility in these different projects to the community that needs to hear as much expertise as they possibly can on individual projects?
the availability, I think, is very critical when it comes to decision making in the public view.
if it's civil court or a road or if it's open space or whatever the subject matter may be.
when we're out there this the community and the public hearings are out there being held where the rubber meets the road with this particular committee, how will they be with the lean on expertise when they may need it from the individual, staff person with the county?
will these persons be accountable to us as far as what we're doing here today, but who is going to be there for the listening public when we go out with these different committees and stuff like that?
how would that be structured?
>> I think what we did last time was to form appropriate county staff, some members of the advisory committee.
>> right.
>> and I remember members of the Commissioners court went to some of those meetings, not all of them.
>> I remember.
>> there were some of those meetings where we outnumbered the participants.
that's how you do it.
otherwise you'll -- you'll overwork certain people.
>> yeah.
but I guess when it comes to expertise, we want to continue to follow that same trend as we did in the past?
>> that and if we can improve upon it.
>> or improve upon it.
>> if you look at county staff, committee members and a member or two of the court, more than two, it really ought to be posted.
>> yeah.
>> that's several people.
and then as needed when there are specific issues to be discussed rather than a whole package, you may want others to go.
>> yeah.
>> see what I知 saying?
>> because there's going to be some questions that are -- it always happens whenever stuff comes up.
there's going to be questions out there that somebody is going to ask and we're going to need somebody to answer.
that's what I was basically referring to, can we lean on what we did in the past, are we going to stay with the same structure.
that's where I was coming from.
>> Commissioner, one of the things we have talked about internally over the last couple of weeks is jessica is going to be the point for us in terms of financial affordability and running debt models.
she is going to be the point for that.
on the planning side, belinda and leslie have been the managers for the planning effort and they will be available -- of course, danny and I will also be there too throughout the process in terms of the -- of the facilities piece.
we will be looking as well with working very closely with susan, again as the liaison for the district judges on the civil courthouse project in particular, we'll be working very closely with her.
and I知 assuming, not speaking for susan, but I知 assuming she would probably want to have some representation as well when we begin that process.
>> right.
well, I just want to make sure that looking at what we've done in the past, we have a repeat performance, I mean a few things have changed, per se, but the project itself gets enough persons here that's involved with the county to make sure that they are able to facilitate the citizens that are out there that will be hearing these different proposals on projects.
that's basically what I want to make sure happens.
I know the committee does a lot when we appoint that committee, but at the end of the day, the committee is the committee.
we're talking about Travis County staff also that has to accommodate that committee.
so that's where I知 coming from.
>> yes, sir.
>> last time we had a pretty good public education piece.
>> yeah.
we did.
>> that we could use to guide conversation.
>> yeah.
>> and so I知 --
>> have to lean on that again.
we may have to lean on that again, judge.
>> and we have already had some discussions along those lines, judge.
>> okay.
>> the motion covers a and b and it's to appoint the core team of those four to work with mr. Manila, who is one of those four with t.n.r.
yes.
>> I just want to lay in that I agree it's best to have a single head, but I want to reiterate what I said a minute ago because historically at the county the majority of the projects have been road and bridge and open space.
I think that's why t.n.r.
has been taking the lead on this through the years.
as we're moving down a major process of looking at more facilities and from a standpoint of our master plan and the importance of the civil courthouse this year, I think that by very nature of definition that a bond referendum would automatically come under a planning and budget office because there's an objectist there that doesn't have an objective in roads and open spaces and I feel strongly we need a team between p.b.o.
and t.n.r.
that is where I am on item b at this point.
it will help us assess for the future if we went that way.
whether or not we want to keep it at t.n.r.
or whether or not it should be under the lead of planning and budget office.
but I think we're in a transition year with a lot of unique circumstances, and I just think we need to be sure we've got our bases covered in the leadership.
>> the motion before us, it adds mr. Hobby and miss pataro.
but I mean I don't see all four necessarily working on every little thing that comes up.
seems to me they divide up the work as appropriate.
>> I thought f, pataro, hobby, rhoades and manila team was in regards to developing guidelines for public-private partnerships for facilities.
>> you are right on target.
we just expanded that by adding them on a and b.
>> so we have added them to a and b?
>> that's the motion with a second.
>> but t.n.r.
is going to be the lead and the others work with them.
is that my understanding of the motion?
>> well, I don't know that I necessarily see them as leading it.
I see the core team as working together.
I would think that t.n.r.
will take the lead on transportation, parks and the projects under t.n.r.
jurisdiction.
seems to me that on some of the other stuff when it comes to answering questions about debt capacity, et cetera, then if ms. Rio is a point person for p.b.o., she's the one that really ought to take the lead.
you see what I知 saying?
so after thinking about this, it ought to work well in f and should work in a and b.
we started out on this as an item from t.n.r.
which was interesting getting this deal started.
but I think the -- what we have been saying, the thrust of it is we would like for the core team to help lead this initiative for us.
and when you start adding other projects, many of them are not, you know, under the bailly wick of transportation.
to the extend we need to refine that we can bring back another item with the other one if we need to.
you all are following us fairly well, right?
>> right.
>> this thing is fluid.
and the other thing too is when you start meeting with a 15-member citizens advisory committee, I expect the active committee to kind of dictate what the core team and Commissioners court do, you know, while they are deliberating.
last time they were doing pretty good about asking questions, asking for an audience with part of the court, asking for an audience with p.b.o.
so they could understand issuing debt and debt capacity, impact on the average taxpayer, you know, relevant questions like that.
but when you look at this list, there will be a long list of projects and it seems to me that money-wise the civil courts building may be heavy, but when you look at the number of projects, it's a whole lot of transportation stuff really.
>> could you restate your motion one more time so I can figure out where I am on this?
>> when I looked at a and b, it was what t.n.r.
would do.
and in b we said to work with designated department or manager.
and a was kind of general.
t.n.r.
would initial nature management.
what my motion really is to add to t.n.r.
the other three executive managers.
so we end up with four of them working together.
>> my only reticence there is that it -- and I知 fine with this motion as it stands today, but I think, you know, organically coming up from y'all or top down coming down from us, I think we do need to establish for the -- the public who do they go to you all get the one-stop shop on what's happening with the bond referendum.
>> perhaps part of the motion they designate amongst themselves a spokesperson.
>> maybe so.
because also as stuff comes up, just look at the sheets already provided by t.n.r., really good work, but I have some suggestions.
I知 not sure, do I send it to all four, who do I expect a response from?
I think we need to be clearer as a court in what our expectations for these four are.
and that -- that might be a start.
>> we expect the four of them to get this done.
and the Commissioners court ought to stay out of their way.
to the extent that you need guidance from the Commissioners court, ask for us.
because we've got to put it on the agenda, come to the next meeting and give that guidance.
whereas if you all can work it out under these general guidelines, do so.
it seems to me if you have a question about transportation projects go see manila.
questions about debt caps and some other stuff, go to rodney.
questions about space, planning and civil courts, public-private relationship or contracts on facilities, you know, rodney, susan, maybe the whole group.
is how I see it working.
the other thing is that the beauty of all of this is there will be too much work for one person.
so I see them logically sitting down and trying to divide it up at some point.
and you would divide it up based on area of responsibility.
I don't see mr. Manila eagerly be out there learning about medical examiner's facility when he's got a lap full of transportation, parks, b.c.p.
and other things to be worried about, right?
>> right.
judge, we want to leave that open for steve.
>> [laughter] but, you know, I guess what is going to be neat about this is that if we all work together, I think it is good to have one person as the contact.
but I think it won't take very long for us to realize that, you know, I知 not going to be wanting to go talk about road projects.
I may be with them at the same meeting, but when it comes to medical examiner's, he's not going to want to talk about that and I know how to talk about that.
I think this will naturally flow within itself and rodney and I certainly know susan will designate and delegate appropriately and I think it will work fine in regards to, you know, to our individual projects as well as our group projects together.
but you will probably see us as a team.
Commissioner Davis, you know, the bond elections that I致e done, I致e really enjoyed it because you go out and meet the public, you really get to answer all the good questions.
>> good experience.
>> it's a wonderful experience.
and they expect you to have answers and I would think we would be there to answer them.
>> [indiscernible].
>> any more discussion?
>> one comment, judge, and I think it will come to this realization eventually, t.n.r.
has the infrastructure and knows how the logistics of this works from our past experience.
the areas of expertise that's fine to be guide, but I think there should be one group to set the meetings, distribute information, receive information and get that up to the powers that be.
>> let us know if you all can't decide who to do it.
>> okay.
fair enough.
>> all in favor of the motion?
show Commissioners -- show a unanimous court.
anything else on item number 9?
>> no, sir, we'll get you that list next week.
we'll make sure on its the agenda.
>> okay, we have an item come back on next week's list.
if we need something else that we need to clarify or act on that we've not considered yet, let us know, if possible, by 1:00 or so tomorrow and we'll put it on next week's agenda.
>> for instance, the draft 1-8-11 opportunity to serve on Travis County citizens bond advisory committee and the bulleted list after it, there's some things that I think should be added to that.
that was not neatly under any of these agenda items. Who is in charge of that?
>> we put it together, input from rod knee's group and we'll be glad to make those edits and I値l be sure to circulate it among these gays.
>> did we approve that last week?
>> no.
>> then it needs to come back next week.
this court needs to approve that.
>> beautiful.
>> the one -- the one part that I mention, you know, kind of I guess my air anxious to get working on is we have talked with the courthouse a public-private partnership.
start doing some fact finding, start identifying issues, look at potential things that we could do.
we've been getting legislative draft, legislation drafted very broad.
it needs to be much narrower.
if we knew more what we were looking at and do some financial analysis so at least we would be you're be coming down to -- if we're looking at looking at one of those, what is the potential and what do we need to get that ball growing because the community is interested in that and we do have a lot of work to be done.
and so the public-private partnerships for courthouses are just different.
I mean the code is very peculiar.
we need to kind of pull all that together, and I see kind of animediacy there.
we went to a meeting and could we do a lease on the courthouse.
there's issues how it would fit in.
there's some basic analysis I think that would narrow our focus because you are soon going to get bombarded with ideas.
and we want to be able to process them and look at things that are relevant and not waste time on things that haven't.
to be real frank, that's my primary interest right now is get news that kind of position.
I obviously am not an expert on facilities, but just that part is kind of what I would like to move on fairly quickly so that, you know, we could look at that and make decisions.
>> okay.
thank you 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, 2011 12:12 PM
