     |
Hays County Commissioners CourtPosted February 15, 2007, 4 p.m.
road project responsibilities |
Hays Highway Editor
SAN MARCOS – Hays County Commissioners took an evasive tack towards resolving a conflict that promised to define the new court.
Rather than leave the administrative designee status for road projects in the hands of Precinct 3 Commissioner Will Conley, or hand such status over to County Judge Elizabeth Sumter, the court narrowly voted Tuesday to give the responsibility to all of the commissioners, or none of them, depending on how one views the glass.
The court's designee works with the county's road consultants and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to facilitate road projects. Among the most contentious is a pass-through agreement the county is exploring with TxDOT, by which the county would front $158.8 million for state highway projects and await reimbursement from the state agency for up to $133.3 million over time.
Under the new arrangement, which provides for no such designee, all commissioners will take the administrative reigns for the roads in their own precincts.
On the upside, the new arrangement gives each commissioner more hands-on involvement in precinct-specific roads, along with more accountability to constituents and less danger that an outside commissioner acting as road administrator will create political trouble.
On the downside, the new arrangement will almost certainly be more costly as consultants and other private actors in the process bill three or four times as many phone calls and meetings with separate commissioners, rather than one coordinating administrator.
Although each road project operates on a separate budget, the funding sources are centralized to the county. Without a point person to deal with TxDOT, the consultants or the funding sources, central administrative decisions will have to be made in workshops or open court, since any private gathering of three or more commissioners would constitute a quorum and, therefore, a violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act.
Proponents of the change expressed displeasure with Conley's handling of the projects and his communication with other commissioners. Conley said he has been appropriately open with information, adding that the move away from a central administrator would move road initiatives "off budget and off task."
Said Conley to the court just before the 3-2 vote that stripped him of countywide road administration, "I think you're making a dangerous change to something that's working."
The former court, on which Republicans held a 4-1 majority, voted in December to make Conley the county's administrative designee, knowing a new court with a 4-1 Democratic majority would be seated in January, leaving Conley as the only Republican. The former court also knew Sumter disliked the pass-through arrangement, which she has characterized as the state using the county like a credit card.
The discussion began with a motion that the administrative duties be moved to Sumter's office from Conley's, then shifted to a less centralized arrangement when Sumter accepted a friendly amendment from Precinct 4 Commissioner Karen Ford that would make each commissioner the administrator for the roads in his or her precinct. Ford argued that she didn't know of a compelling reason why a central administrative point was necessary.
Commissioners approved Ford's proposal in a 3-2 vote, with Ford, Sumter and Precinct 1 Commissioner Debbie Ingalsbe voting in its favor, while Conley and Precinct 2 Commissioner Jeff Barton voted in opposition.
Under the arrangement, Ingalsbe will become the administrative point for state Loop 110, which is proposed to partially circle San Marcos. Barton takes over the tasks for FM 1626. Barton and Ingalsbe will share the load for SH 21, which runs through both of their precincts. Conley will retain administrative control over RR 12, while Ford will take the responsibilities for US 290.
Once the discussion revealed that the vote would go as it did, Barton suggested that the court wait before making a decision. Barton argued that projects on the scale of road construction are most efficiently conducted under a project manager, which creates "clear lines of accountability and authority." Barton, the only court Democrat opposing the decentralization, added that Conley has the institutional knowledge for the job.
By suggesting a deferral, Barton evidently hoped he and Conley could sway one more vote in favor of a central administrator, perhaps bringing Ingalsbe to their side by papering over her misunderstandings with Conley. Ingalsbe and Conley have different stories to tell about Conley's initiation of a lawsuit against San Marcos resident Reed Carr so the county could gain access to Carr's property for a Loop 110 survey.
The episode has wrankled San Marcos residents and property rights advocates. Conley reportedly has said Ingalsbe approved of the suit, while Ingalsbe has reportedly said she had "some knowledge" of the legal action.
