Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, January 18, 2011,
Item 20
20 is to consider and take appropriate action regarding the citizens bond advisory committee for the 2011 bond referendum as follows: a, committee charter, b, notification to interested citizens and potential committee members, c, timeline, and d, appointments to the citizens bond advisory committee.
>> morning, judge, the Commissioner's statement
>> [inaudible].
following up on last week's discussion about putting together the bond referendum, what's presented to you today are several guidance documents that we're going to need to be successful in putting this together.
the committee charter is one of the -- one of the main documents that we want to put into place.
it explains the composition of the committee.
you will each appoint three persons to it.
it explains that we would -- what our expectations of the committee are, that we expect them to develop a democratic and inclusive process and to evaluate the need for a bond program, and also to take a look at the different projects that we present to them for their consideration.
it goes on quite a bit, and I can walk down through it, but generally this is the same charter that we used in 2005, and we were successful at that time with that particular process.
the next item is the project schedule and we have checked with the clerk's office.
November 8 is the date for the vote.
happens to be the same one that we used in 2005, so most of all these dates on this schedule are the same that were used for the 2005 referendum, at least very close to them.
I don't want to -- folks to think that every one of these dates is absolutely hard and in concrete, but we should come close to meeting each one of them.
and finally there is a -- what was requested from the court, an email blast to persons who may be interested in serving on the citizens advisory committee.
this was requested by the court, and it more or less explains what it is we need as far as commitments and what we are looking for as far as backgrounds.
and we did add to this -- this document from last week's discussion an actual application form that is at the back of that -- of that particular document.
so with the court's approval of these three documents we'll move one step closer to getting the citizens bond advisory committee established and getting them hard at work at looking at projects.
>> I have a couple of small things.
I didn't have the opportunity to provide you this -- this last Tuesday because it wasn't squarely in the sights of any of the language of the agenda items, but in the -- let's see, I believe it's attachment 1, qualifications and background requirements for services, there just seems to be -- this is a small redundancy, but I think worthy of note.
under communication organization, we list legal council.
I think that that should be struck in light of the fact legal and property rights background is listed in governmental, and it's also -- legal council again is listed in management and finance.
I think it's misleading to say legal council.
I think perhaps legal knowledge would be appropriate to leave under management finance and under governmental, but to take it out of communication and organization, I think it just gives the false impression that we're looking for someone to actually act as our attorney on the bond advisory committee.
and then another thing which I think is just an oversight considering we're using the -- the opportunity to serve letter last time as a template, but with regard to the buildings that we are contemplating as part of the bonds package, we do list new civil courthouse in downtown Austin, but we also are talking about -- potentially talking about an airport boulevard building as well as a medical examiner's building.
so I’m wondering if we couldn't take that clause and say, new -- new buildings in downtown, airport boulevard and other areas of Travis County.
>> I think we should add county buildings but I would leave in the civil courthouse, because it's such a prominent part of the bond issue.
>> I think that's fine.
it was not sufficiently inclusive.
and that is on what --
>> that is on what page?
>> that is page -- page --
>> opportunity to serve.
>> the January 11, 2011 opportunity to serve.
>> well, what I would do too, since we're mentioning minor stuff in the opening paragraph there, I think the key one is the first one.
so where we say each court member will appoint three persons to serve approximately eight months and advise the court, I would put a, b, c and d.
we just now rate them there.
do we want them really to decide whether an election is necessary or whether an election is appropriate?
>> well, I was thinking they would determine whether it's necessary.
>> I think we have kind of implied that we think it's necessary --
>> [chuckle] why we call them and have work force.
and appropriate really kind of says help us decide what should be on the --
>> on the ballot.
>> -- ballot.
>> okay.
fair enough.
>> the clause between those two commas?
>> what I have is court, and I have a, whether an election is appropriate, semicolon, b, the overall overall scope.
bond practice, which you-all have.
then I’ve got c, a prioritized list of recommended projects.
>> and then d, the fiscal impact stuff?
because I think those are going to be very important.
>> I have d, the potential fiscal impacts.
>> yeah.
and I think citizens can learn the process and help us get there.
>> right.
right.
because -- the reason I put potential there is whenever you talk about fiscal impact, each year we are paying down debt as we add to it.
so you can add less or you can pay down more.
there are a whole lot of things you could do to affect the potential impact.
but if you say "potential" there, you're kind of saying as of today.
if we simply add this much debt, here's the impact on the average taxpayer, is how we normally -- so that's -- I would just say that.
I don't know if any of that is super-critical -- the other thing is that on that questionnaire we say discuss.
I would put "explain" or "state." I don't know that we have enough time for them to discuss different stuff but if they just explain or state reasons for wanting to serve on the committee, I think that will get to what we are looking for more than anything else, right?
>> yes, sir.
>> and I kind of jumped ahead of you because we were on page 1.
otherwise I think this is fairly basic stuff.
>> uh-huh.
>> great, thank you very much.
>> get started.
so according to your schedules, the court itself would make the appointments when?
>> quickly, judge.
>> [laughter] we're showing having a kickoff meeting with them in February, February 22, so --
>> okay.
the opportunity to serve document will be publicized tomorrow?
>> we will do, in line with what anna was talking to you about as far as putting this information out on our web site and how we receive it and sharing it with you guys, similar to what she's going to do with her committee.
>> and along the concerns that Commissioner Davis had, don't we also have a list of community organizations to whom we could mail the notice so they could tell their membership about it?
>> sure.
>> I think we already have that list and I think it would be a good list to refer to.
>> so what would be the date, deadline date, for making an application to serve on this?
>> well, if we want them to meet by the 22nd they're going to need a week to ten days to just get it scheduled, so I’m thinking that we're going to need to know within the next 14 days at the latest.
if we put this out tomorrow, people have already been contacting me.
I assume they're contacting you as well, so they're aware it's coming.
we just need to tie it down, and I would suggest 14 days from today to have their applications in.
>> I think I have two people already that are ready to go.
>> sure.
>> [laughter]
>> ms. Porter, February 1?
>> yes.
>> two weeks from today?
why don't we have that as a deadline.
and you have the court on February 8, trying to appoint the members anyway.
>> uh-huh.
>> those two date -- how do those two dates suit court members?
>> that would be fine.
>> February 1, we ought to put that in the document to serve document, and we plan to have that on the court's agenda February 8 to make the appointments.
>> okay.
great.
>> now, when we look at qualifications and background requirements, does that indicate our interest in getting a cross section of our community?
>> no.
>> that's the intention of those different categories?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
is there a motion?
>> move approval of the -- the items a, b, c and d.
>> with revisions made -- recommended by the court today?
>> yes.
>> second by Commissioner Davis.
discussion of the motion?
all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
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 2:47 PM
